High GFY Americans - are you for or against guns

[Badmaash]

High GFY Americans - are you for or against guns

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

Rather simplistic/loaded question...but I'll play along, since I believe some gun control is necessary - definitely not trying to take away everyone's guns, but I think the world would be a little safer if there were fewer guns in circulation, and I fully support the Assault Weapons Ban legislation proposed by Senator Feinstein.







ADG

[CurrentlySober]

i like the runs...

[TurboAngel]

I'm for guns just not those crazy one that can shoot 13847575 bullets in two mins.

[bronco67]

I grew up shooting, and I still love guns...but I don't think anyone should be able to amass a giant arsenal of military weapons. Less guns in our culture would be a better thing overall.

People who think everyone should be armed look at everything through the prism of their tiny worldview. If more than half the population was armed like they'd prefer, there probably would be less mass shootings -- but a road rage incident could easily turn into a shootout, or two guys squaring off in a bar could turn the whole place into a bullet festival with lots of deaths.

They don't consider the idea that when you carry a gun around with you everywhere, your chances of shooting someone have gone through the roof. Even having a gun in your closet that never gets used...you've bumped up your odds of killing someone way more than if you have a baseball bat for protection. Not saying you shouldn't own a gun, but it's something to consider. I sure as fuck don't want to end up killing someone other than a person trying to kill me.

[CDSmith]

I'm against idiocy. If the USA could figure out a way to prevent irresponsible idiots from owning firearms of any flavor it would go a long way to solving the problem. Also, try divering at least part of the massive spenditure for the war on drugs over to nailing scumbags who sell guns out of the trunks of their cars.

[sperbonzo]

Originally Posted by bronco67

People who think everyone should be armed look at everything through the prism of their tiny worldview. If more than half the population was armed like they'd prefer, there probably would be less mass shootings -- but a road rage incident could easily turn into a shootout, or two guys squaring off in a bar could turn the whole place into a bullet festival with lots of deaths.

They don't consider the idea that when you carry a gun around with you everywhere, your chances of shooting someone have gone through the roof. Even having a gun in your closet that never gets used...you've bumped up your odds of killing someone way more than if you have a baseball bat for protection. Not saying you shouldn't own a gun, but it's something to consider. I sure as fuck don't want to end up killing someone other than a person trying to kill me.

Of course, the fact that all of the statistics completely refute what you are saying shouldn't matter, right?

When Florida passed the right-to-carry laws, the press described all of the dire warnings that you are talking about, with wild west and traffic accident shoot outs, etc....

NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAPPENED.

In fact, crime dropped the next year, and of the almost 1 million people licensed to carry in Florida, 165 have had their licenses revoked for a committing a crime. This is the same situation across the board in states that allow concealed carry.




You should read "More Guns, Less Crime" or do a little research online regarding CCW permits and the results of them being issued in 32 states.



.


.

[mineistaken]

Its 6th thread in a row posted by you that is about weed. Please stop.

[Badmaash]

Originally Posted by mineistaken

Its 6th thread in a row posted by you that is about weed. Please stop.

Did you talk to Frank?

[sperbonzo]

[purecane]

all the fancy graphs and stats are useless. the fact remains, it is not the governments place to tell us what we can own.

[Tom_PM]

Yes it is the governments place to tell you what you can own. That's called "governing." You may NOT own almost every weapon invented in the past 100 years for one simple and should be painfully obvious example.

But the entire question is just silly. I'm not for or against guns. I am for a more serious approach to guns and there are simple examples. In my state, for example, supermarkets and drug stores may NOT sell alcohol aside from beer and other weak things like wine coolers and hard lemonade. We have what are called "liquor stores" where you can buy wine and hard booze. In many states you can load up your gallons of vodka next to your baby formula at the supermarket. Thats because of government regulations.. ie: what government is designed to do.. govern.

Basically IMHO you should have to pass a written and practical test before obtaining a license to own a firearm. Then you should have to purchase the firearm and it's ammunition from a licensed dealer. No exceptions.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

[DWB]

I voted FOR but it is a loaded question.

If all guns IN THE WORLD were to be collected and destroyed, then I would vote to destroy them ALL without having to think about it. Life would be better without them.

However, since criminals and "authority" will have guns, then everyone should be able to have one. This is our current situation, thus my vote for FOR GUNS. That said, everyone who owns one should have to take extensive training and pass a test to be able to legally have one. At least this way those who do have them, the responsible people, will at least know how to use them.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Yes it is the governments place to tell you what you can own. That's called "governing." You may NOT own almost every weapon invented in the past 100 years for one simple and should be painfully obvious example.

Canadian, right?

[purecane]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Yes it is the governments place to tell you what you can own. That's called "governing." You may NOT own almost every weapon invented in the past 100 years for one simple and should be painfully obvious example.

But the entire question is just silly. I'm not for or against guns. I am for a more serious approach to guns and there are simple examples. In my state, for example, supermarkets and drug stores may NOT sell alcohol aside from beer and other weak things like wine coolers and hard lemonade. We have what are called "liquor stores" where you can buy wine and hard booze. In many states you can load up your gallons of vodka next to your baby formula at the supermarket. Thats because of government regulations.. ie: what government is designed to do.. govern.

Basically IMHO you should have to pass a written and practical test before obtaining a license to own a firearm. Then you should have to purchase the firearm and it's ammunition from a licensed dealer. No exceptions.

at what point will there be enough "governing?" we have thousands of laws and they create more everyday. maybe you need someone to tell you how to be a responsible citizen, but i don't.


and if the guy next to me wants to fill his shopping cart with vodka and bullets, guess who i won't be pissing off.

[mineistaken]

Originally Posted by purecane73

all the fancy graphs and stats are useless. the fact remains, it is not the governments place to tell us what we can own.

So its not your place to tell me what I can bring to your house as well? remember that you are living in "governments house". Rules are set by government.

[purecane]

and that government gives me the right to defend my house....bring it.

even without someone telling me if its legal or illegal, you're probably not walking away.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by DWB

Canadian, right?

nope, 'murican.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by purecane73

at what point will there be enough "governing?" we have thousands of laws and they create more everyday. maybe you need someone to tell you how to be a responsible citizen, but i don't.


and if the guy next to me wants to fill his shopping cart with vodka and bullets, guess who i won't be pissing off.

I dunno, I only know that as things are right now, people don't have to be able to do more than read and write to get a deadly weapon. Seems pretty irresponsible as a nation to not put some kind of minimal requirements such as an eye and coordination test. I suggest a shooting range test and after passing it they can pay their fee and get a license. It should be at least as stringent as a drivers license. Not so hard. I'd say at that point we should be good for awhile.