Serious Opinions on Guns?

[ThatStuff!!]

As an American, I know about all the good and bad about guns. Due to all of the protests and racial tensions in the US, guns and ammo are flying off the shelves. I'm thinking about getting one myself. (I'm black) What is your opinion on guns, and (if you're not American) do you thing guns should be allowed in your country? (if they're not already allowed.)

 

[Corrin]

My country has strict gun laws and assault rifles are outright banned. Because of this, most people here don't use guns at all save for hunters.
Here, you have to take lessons and pass them if you wish to get a license.

As for me, if you live in a violent area I can see owning a gun but I do believe countries like the states need more laws surrounding them. Gun violence is rampant there and I feel so bad for the victims. As for the constitution, was it made when the country was first founded? I can see needing guns back in the 1700s but it's just not relevant for today.

 

[Nah]

As for the constitution, was it made when the country was first founded? I can see needing guns back in the 1700s but it's just not relevant for today.

The US Constitution was written and accepted by the states roughly a decade after what's generally considered the year the country was founded in. We had a different governing document/framework for a handful of years before it called The Articles of Confederation.

 

[Palamon]

Ban them. I'm sick and fucking tired of there being a shooting in America/somewhere else in the world because we won't ratify a goddamn amendment to limit gun usage. I don't give a shit if it's "protected by a second amendment" repeal it. If you can repeal the alcohol ban amendment then you can ratify an amendment to appeal the second amendment. If we can't ban them, then strictly limit them. Force people to pass a lot of background checks.

Unless, you live in a high crime area, or are going hunting/to shooting ranges, but still. Background checks. Maybe mental health checks, too, but the congress doesn't give a shit about mental health, so that'll never happen.

 

[Corrin]

The US Constitution was written and accepted by the states roughly a decade after what's generally considered the year the country was founded in. We had a different governing document/framework for a handful of years before it called The Articles of Confederation.

I see, something that was relevant 200+ years ago though isn't today. Owning a gun as a right sounds so ridiculous to me, it should be more of a privilege.

 

[Zeostar]

I support guns as a means of self defense. I've seen many stories of robberies and home invasions being stopped because that potential victim was carrying. Including one today where an elderly lady defended herself in a home invasion against an intruder. If someone has the intent to break into a home, it's likely they will find the means to procure a weapon regardless of legality. Without guns, one person who would be unable to protect themselves may be completely left helpless.

But I don't understand the obsession with owning these high-tec military style weapons. There is no need to own assault rifles, but when you get into this side of the argument it's usually from people who see the government as tyrannical.

 

[gimmepie]

I don't think firearms need to be outright banned, and frankly I get tired of everyone who is for greater gun control being painted that way. That being said, the idea of it being a constitutional right to own a gun? That's absolute madness. The idea that having more guns in the world makes the world safer? Just as ridiculous.

Guns should be heavily, heavily regulated. Unless you're a cop, you shouldn't be just carrying one around on the street and unless you're a soldier actively serving, you don't need access to a military-grade weapon.

Tighter laws. More stringent background checks. Psych evaluations. That is all. If just about every other country on Earth can manage, so can the US.

 

[Sonata]

There are a lot of people who are firearms enthusiasts and own dozens of weapons. There are people who are simply concerned for their own safety and own a single handgun for protection with the hope of never having to fire it. Shooting guns in an appropriate area can be fun, but there is always the danger that comes with a firearm even in the hands of someone who is trained and certified. I believe guns should be relegated to military use only and should most definitely be removed from the hands of the common police officer. However, it's about 100 years too late for that to be a viable option. Our "right" to a firearm in America is supposed to be there to protect us from the oppression of others, however the people being oppressed most often are also those most often denied their right to a firearm. We don't have the means to remove the problem that is guns without first tearing down every other thing that holds guns in that problematic position.

It is significantly harder to stab someone to death than it is to pull a trigger. Guns should be heavily, heavily limited in their use outside of military exploits. Guns are a vehicle that have no use other than to commit murder. You can slap whatever flavor sugar you want onto the word, but at the end of the day it is still a tool to take the life of someone else and should not be allowed in the hands of the common folk.

 

[Megan]

Guns help us to solve those problems that we wouldn't have without them.

 

[moon]

It is wayy too easy to take a life with a gun. And it happens way too often that guns are used irresponsibly. This is the main problem. It is too easy for people who shouldn't be anywhere near guns, to use them to kill.

Therefore, guns are inherently a terrible thing and should not be used or even owned unless it is completely necessary. War, security, maybe police if needed; people who are (or should be!) actually trained to realize how extremely dangerous guns are and how unfairly easy it is to kill or hurt someone with one.

So no, I really don't like guns. No one should, unless they hunt wild animals (legally) and have a favorite cool rifle or something.

 

[LucarioBread]

Seliph put it most concisely and to the point. You don't need a gun to protect yourself from another gun wielder if said person doesn't own one. Maybe don't completely take firearms from civilians (let's not forget that responsible collectors exist) but rather heavily regulate it with a rigurous exam or something to get the license.

 

[Zeostar]

Seliph put it most concisely and to the point. You don't need a gun to protect yourself from another gun wielder if said person doesn't own one. Maybe don't completely take firearms from civilians (let's not forget that responsible collectors exist) but rather heavily regulate it with a rigurous exam or something to get the license.

I don't quite understand this one. But if it's okay could you explain?

If someone is intent on harm, a gun isn't the only thing someone will procure. In the instance of a home invasion, someone can break in with a crowbar or knife. It's not as powerful as owning a gun, but robbers commonly target those who they don't preserve as a threat. Such as the elderly. If guns are taken away, it turns that more into a physical altercation. Often a young adult against someone who has no chance at defending themselves.

I keep thinking back at a story that was playing the other day. An 80 year lady defended herself in a home invasion because she owned a firearm. If she didn't own a gun, that story may have turned into a nightmare. It would have forced her to fight on an equal level to those trying to harm her.

 

[Fairy]

Don't like 'em, don't want 'em, but not gonna stop anyone from getting one. Just keep it away from me. /shrug

 

[LucarioBread]

I don't quite understand this one. But if it's okay could you explain?

If someone is intent on harm, a gun isn't the only thing someone will procure. In the instance of a home invasion, someone can break in with a crowbar or knife. It's not as powerful as owning a gun, but robbers commonly target those who they don't preserve as a threat. Such as the elderly. If guns are taken away, it turns that more into a physical altercation. Often a young adult against someone who has no chance at defending themselves.

I keep thinking back at a story that was playing the other day. An 80 year lady defended herself in a home invasion because she owned a firearm. If she didn't own a gun, that story may have turned into a nightmare. It would have forced her to fight on an equal level to those trying to harm her.

I never said that the violent incidents would cease because the guns are banned. What I meant is, their numbers would drop since it's harder to harm someone using, say, a knife than outright shooting them from several meters away.
In the case that you've mentioned, yes, unfortunately the elderly will be at a disadvantage. However, I think cases like this are a but a drop in the pool compared to the amount of incidents caused by the civilian ownership of firearms.
I admit I don't have any concrete sources about this, so feel free to correct me.

 

[gimmepie]

Also, most robberies don't actually involve violence of any kind. The idea that a lethal response is reasonable for robbery, a crime that earns you a "paltry" few years in prison and is usually non-violent when even places with the death penalty are (rightfully) hesitant to use it is very strange to me. If you don't resist, there's very little reason for a burglar to become violent.

 

[Zarude]

I don't really care that much, tbh

 

[Caite-chan]

As an American we have a right to own guns and there is nothing wrong with that. But I think you should be able to have a limit of what you can own as apposed to hand guns and then what you can have for game hunting. Other than that there is absolutely NO REASON for a citizen to own assault weapons. But as Americans we're to up our own ass and trigger happy to do anything about it. America has more shootings than any other country and that's not okay.

 

[Flowerchild]

I'm in Canada, and gun laws are obviously quite restrictive here, which to nobody's surprise I am happy about. I do want to talk about America though, since it's the predominant subject of this thread.

America's gun laws are ridiculous and cause far more harm than good. In particular, the idea of "but what if criminals" takes like five seconds to debunk. For one thing, every other developed nation is doing fine with much tighter gun restrictions, so clearly something is weird there.

I don't know the crime statistics, so while I suppose one could argue that America somehow has an exceptionally high crime rate that necessitates guns, I think that would be more endemic of the country's ever-increasing poverty gap and late-stage capitalism forcing people into law-breaking roles to survive than not enough people having the ability to themselves safe. Crime isn't random. It's caused by definite factors, and giving more people deadly weapons is literally the worst way to solve it.

Also, to agree with GP, the readiness with which some (not all) Americans seem to point to guns as a resolution to crime that is not remotely life threatening is extremely disturbing to me. Do I want to be robbed? No. Am I willing to potentially kill someone over some stolen posessions? No, jesus christ, why would you even think that.

 

[pkmin3033]

I have a lot of criticism when it comes to UK Law, but one thing I have no problems with at all is the regulation of firearms in this country. We might have a lot of knife crime - although you're not actually allowed to carry a knife around in public, but you can't exactly forbid people from buying knives - but we've had only four mass shootings by a civilian in our history, which is...good. It's very good. Firearms are very heavily regulated in the UK and that's as it should be - you don't need to carry around a gun for protection in every day life.

In my opinion...well, unless you're required to own one because of your job - and even then you should be subjected to the most rigorous psychological evaluation possible, with regular reviews - you shouldn't have access to a firearm. At all. A gun only has one use. I won't pretend to understand US gun laws or this whole "it's my right to carry a weapon to defend myself" thing (honestly I would probably think the same if I lived in a society that had relaxed gun laws because I don't trust people not to fly off the handle and immediately resort to lethal force because that's just what people do - give them power and they want to use it) but...well, I think the world would be a better, safer place if members of the general public were not allowed access to firearms. Or it would at least be a positive step forward to making the world the kind of place people might feel a little safer living in.

 

[Caite-chan]

I'll be going with 2019 USA's numbers and the definition of a mass shooting which is (a shooting in which 3 or more people are shot, minus the shooter). Although there is no true definition.

In 2019 America had more "mass shootings" than we had days in a year with 434. Granted we didn't have one every single day of the year but we technically had almost a shooting and a half a day. There is literally no reason for that and unless there a handful or more people that die there isn't wide spread news about it. And even when something like this happens nothing is ever truly done about it. Why? Because us Americans go bat shit crazy saying out rights are being infringed on.

My question would then be Why do you need THAT many guns? Why do you need THAT type of gun? And if you're THAT pissed off what are you trying to hide or plan?