Your voice on guns

[Ace_777]

What do you guys think about people who carry guns for self-defence, do you think its right or wrong please explain why you chose what you chose

                    Thanks, Ace  :)
P.s Mods I understand the severity of this question (violence, guns etc) Please feel free to remove it if it collides with the forum rules Thanks  :)

[Iroquois]

This topic will end up getting locked because of its political nature.

My two cents is that civilians are not responsible enough to handle a firearm. This has been proven time and again. They are designed to kill and only to kill. As for the hunters, I say take up fishing instead. Its more of a challange.

[Blackhart]

My two cents is that civilians are not responsible enough to handle a firearm.

Nor do I think that civilians are responsible enough to not run a hook through their finger while fishing. Therefore all fishing should be banned.

And since so many are not responsbile enough to wear a condom in these times of serious STD's, sex should also be banned entirely.

[ozzy72]

Well as long as no-one gets up-tight I don't see there being a problem with this thread.
I enjoy shooting, and own a couple of pistols and go shooting with my father-in-law, but I feel that guns should be handled in a responsible and supervised enviroment, such as a gun club.
Both my father-in-law and I were in uniform and know what a gun can do, so we only shoot targets for fun, no point hunting unless its for food, and going to McDonalds is a lot easier
As for people running around with guns, well its a tragedy waiting to happen, although in some places I can appreciate the need e.g. Medellin in Columbia for example...
Personally I think people should have to do tests and assessments before even being allowed to be considered for a weapons licence. In Britain even to own a shotgun for clay-pigeon shooting you need to be assessed by the police, take a battery of psychological tests and a series of exams (written and practical). This seems to remove most of the loonies and idiots from the gun-ownership brigade Obviously I slipped through the net

[ATI_7500]

Totally agreed,Mark. Guns yes, strong laws yes.

[Travis]

I tend to disagree with what most of you said in a general way.

Guns are a part of our modern world and always will be.  In the US it is a fundamental part of our culture, as the right to keep and bear arms is imprinted on our highest form of law: it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution.  If that right is infringed, it goes against everything our country was founded on.

That being said, I agree that there should be a law or two in place that forbids the sale of automatic arms in ANY way to the public.  It should also forbid the sale of these same weapons in semi-automatic form, as that makes them easily modifiable into fully automatic form.

You think hunting rifles should be outlawed?  I personally know some folks that live in the country and whose only source of meat is what they hunt.  "Use a bow and arrow" doesn't really work anymore.  Ever tried using one?  Its a lot harder to do than it looks . . .

As for the hunters, I say take up fishing instead. Its more of a challange.

Its also almost impossible if you don't live near a viable water source with fish in it.  Or at least it isn't economically feasible.

All in all, having guns around isn't the issue.  Its having weapons around that can kill people in a broad spectrum.  I can only think of a few instances where having a fully-automatic rifle would be usefull: war, invasions and bank robberies.  Now which situation is the common citizen going to come across?

[Iroquois]

Nor do I think that civilians are responsible enough to not run a hook through their finger while fishing. Therefore all fishing should be banned.

And since so many are not responsbile enough to wear a condom in these times of serious STD's, sex should also be banned entirely.

You obviously don't live near the city. Toronto is getting really bad for guns. We had a case this past year of an innocent woman who was shot in the back and is now unable to walk. She was just trying to buy a sandwich. There was no robbery, it was a drive by. The shooters missed the inteneded victim and hit her instead. It was with a powerful semi-automatic rifle a bit like an AK47.These people were not trying to defend themselves by doing that. The problem in Canada is that the mafia and the inner-city gangs send drugs down to the US and their guns come up here for payment. There has been a recent rash of random shootings leaving police with cold case after cold case because the weapons cannot be traced and no witnesses talk. Tough laws are great if you can catch the person who did it.

The problem runs much deeper than that. I won't go into details because it crosses some lines. Basically there is no need for guns in society today. We do not need to hunt for food nor do we need to protect our homes from invading armies.

That comment about the fish hook is absolutely absurd. I have yet to hear of a fish hook being used as a murder weapon. As for guns, you point the weapon, bam the person falls dead. That is a leathal weapon, it kills instantly and painfully. Sure you can use a fish hook as a weapon but chances are you won't kill the person. I suppose you can put the same argument towards knives but there's where things are a bit different. Knives can kill but they are a tool as well. They have more than one purpose, guns only have one. Get rid of them.

[ATI_7500]

In the US it is a fundamental part of our culture, as the right to keep and bear arms is imprinted on our highest form of law: it is the Second Amendment to our Constitution.  If that right is infringed, it goes against everything our country was founded on.

But your Constitution was written in the 18th century under different circumstances (indians and so). Don't you think it's a tad..."outdated" ?

[Fozzer]

We've had this discussion flare-up before... ...!

As the average genuine Englishman, rather than the imported gun-toting types, I expect you can guess my opinion regarding "guns", ...so I'll say no more... ...!

Cheers all... ...!

Paul....having to be a little bit "serious" again....sorry... ...!
LOL...!

[Travis]

But your Constitution was written in the 18th century under different circumstances (indians and so). Don't you think it's a tad..."outdated" ?

Absolutely its outdated, but that doesn't mean we can just throw it away.

The concept of a monarch is bit outdated, isn't it?

[Hagar]

So would it be prudent to throw out the Queen of England and put someone else in her place?

I know better than to get involved in this argument but I would just like to point out that this is quite likely within the next few years. Personally speaking, I know the royals are far from perfect but I much prefer them to the alternative. That doesn't bear thinking about.

[Chris_F]

I do own guns and have carried them for self defense.

[BFMF]

As for the hunters, I say take up fishing instead. Its more of a challange.

If you were to bring this up where I live, you would have a big fight on your hands.

Here, The average family doesn't make much money, and the meat they bring home from hunting helps more then you would ever know. I even know some families who can barely afford to buy meat at all, and most of their meat comes from hunting

Besides, after you've hit so many deer with your car, you begin to strongly feel that you've got a moral obligation to the world to keep the deer population into check.

After my last accident almost totalling our Explorer, my dream car is now a military humvee with a .50 caliber machine gun on top

That said, the two fire arms I've wanted forever is an M1 Gerand rifle, and a Glock .45 handgun

[Skittles]

I've scanned breifly through all these posts, but if we have to pass a test to drive a car, why not implement a Weapons Handling Course.

Anyone who can hold a gun, can shoot it. But they need to be taught how to shoot while under stress and WHEN to shoot. I also believe in implementing 6 month or yearly testing or training.

I have personally known people to keep loaded firearms around the home. Mostly shotguns for home defense. All these families have children. Those children were taught with first hand experience what those weapons are capable of doing and when at an appropriate age, taught how to load, fire and unload the weapon safely.

Police are mostly for gathering info AFTER an incident. Or preventing a lasting incident from getting worse. Prevention of most crimes is upon the people more so than police. I strongly believe in owning firearms, but in hand with it, the education of safely operating them.

As far as people carrying firearms, it's ok as long as they have been trained in shoot/don't shoot situations and taught how to keep a cool head while firing or being under fire.

Joe

[Felix/FFDS]

I'll chime in on this.

My feelings tend to be in line with Chris_F.  The problem will always be that of the irresponsible person, and the criminal element.

The logic of banning guns altogether makes sense if the criminal element also respects that - fat chance.  Until then, banning guns for personal defence leaves the basically law abiding (we'll forgive Chris_F's minor traffic violations for the moment) citizen at the mercy of criminal elements.

Do I personally own guns?  No.  Would I like to own one?  Not really.  I do not (yet) feel threatened enough to learn to carry one for defensive purposes, and at this time find the cost of owning and maintaining one not justifiable.  (Now, if a reasonably priced .303 Enfield Mk.III were to drop into my lap, I would be sorely tempted)

I consider that the US Constitution is a cleverly drafted document, still relevant after all these years.  LIke the Judeo/Christian Bible, it is sufficiently vague that it can accomodate many interpretations, and precise enough that it can justify them.

Example:  Using the 2d Amendment  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "

One can justify that personal, private,  ownership of Arms is not specifically permitted.  The Amendment could be narrowly interpreted to allow only those people who are part of a well regulated Militia to "keep and bear" Arms - and in this day an age, only those Arms that are assigned to them while they are bona fide members of the "well regulated Militia".

On the other hand, can not the government (remembering that the Constitution binds the federal government) regulate what kinds and type of Arms can be kept and borne by its citizens?

Then again, "when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns...."