Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by smokey[dead], Mar 18, 2004.
What are your thoughts on Gun control in the US?
If monkeys can have them I don't see why I cannot!
I think a yearly class should be required and that all people walking around with them should have a clean record when it comes to violence and stupid decisions(read: no Darwin Award runner ups/nominees)
*makes a mental note to stay away from this thread when logged in*
Yeah , very contraversal issue. Its up there with abortions, *** marriages and the legalization of marijuana. Not to stray off the topic
I'm for background checks and some method of connecting a gun to its owner for non-curio pieces, against any waiting period or any further restriction of the right to bear arms.
I'd like to see mandatory safety classes and some sort of usage/handling certification testing.
I think there should be some sort of federal regulation as far as concealed carry licensing is concerned. I travel between states a lot and I don't like the idea of possibly being charged somewhere despite being legal at home.
I think full-autos should have a more rigorous screening process. Putting a high tax on them and requiring a set of fingerprints doesn't prove or insure very much.
Simply put, I think strict gun control laws hurt the law abiding citizen and help the criminal, but I will support laws that make solving crimes easier without overly burdening the right to carry or own.
I also think that people need to know very clearly and in no uncertain terms that they are purchasing the ability to kill easily and should be taught to behave properly with that power. I know that sounds dumb, but I think most gun owners are self-defense minded and are unaware or only subconsciously aware of what self-defense will actually entail when the time comes.
I'm for gun ownership. But it should be against the law for anyone who has been convicted of a violent crime to own a gun, or at least to carry it off his property.
I think it is important that the population is always capable of overthrowing a corrupt government. I also think that this is a big reason why governments often like to illegalize gun ownership.
Also, you have to ask yourself... if a terrorist blew up a nuke in Washington D.C., what would you do? Even if there was a chain of command for the government, there would be massive panicked rioting in every populated place in the country. Would you be able to protect your family?
Besides, we all know that gun laws only determine whether or not the law-abiding citizens get to own guns.
Nah, I am all for contraversial topics. It is just that the more vocal people here are so polarised nothing is ever really discussed, and no ground given. The same tired old arguements are used to no effect, and neither side can admit that perhaps what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
But whatever, i'm gone. Back to the topic
You got me until you start talking about wildlife, your speaking riddles man, be more direct please .
Yeah, an armed populace is a bit of a double-edged sword as far as a leadership is concerned. But from a standpoint of a member of that populace the right to arm oneself should be one of the most important ones on the list.
I can't help but wonder what would happen if 20 suicide bombers decided to take AKs into some place like England instead of wearing a belt bomb. I'd imagine they'd have nearly free reign over any city for a good 30 minutes to 2 hours.
I know that's a bit of an appeal to fear, but it's not exactly a cuddly world out there.
Like Tech said, the criminals are going to have guns wheter you there's laws against it or not. We should let our law-abiding citizens also carry guns. Although I never understood the concealed carry stuff. If I'm packing, I want people to know it. You'll see mine proudly displayed on a holster (where legal). If you're a robber, are you going to rob a guy who you can see is carrying a gun? Why stick it in your purse and then try and pull it out later?
Guns are bad if no body had them no one could shoot. That is why no guns allowed on the planet should be.
Where are the flames?
Usually this thread cannot make it a page without atleast 3-4 flame posts...
Thats infringing on people's rights, if i went into a public place (a bar for example) and i saw someone with a gun in his holster i would walk out of that place asap. If you have a gun, i think you should keep it to yourself and only flash it when someone is about to attack you. If not, no one should need to know.
I'd support required safety and training courses, and a fairly basic licensing test that would have to performed periodically. It would be rather similar to owning a car in many aspects.
Also, I really do believe their should be a limit on the guns that are normally permitted. I admit that I'd have some qualms about a guy stashing a mini or anti-aircraft gun in his basement.
Agreed. Some stuff certainly pushes the boundaries of self defense and raises an eyebrow, to say the least. The weapons of relative mass destruction (WRMD?) should be regulated a little more stiffly than my 1911 style .45.
What do you guys think about vests and silencers?
Vests: perfectly ok, only defensive...
Silencers: If your defending yourself, you shouldnt have to be quiet.
As for the displayed guns Smokey, you must get a concealed weapons permit to conceal a handgun, IF your state even allows concealed weapons, as many do not. So it isnt as easy as putting it in your shirt. You must pass a background check etc etc, as well as have it legal in your state.
i wouldn't have a problem with people keeping a gun in a holster for all to see. i odnt think there's any reason for normal citzens to carry assault rifles. Even if Washington was nuked, i don't think there'd be mass riots.
i do think that criminals should never be allowed a gun again. I don't see society reverting to the old west. if i was at a bar and everyone had a gun on a holster i don't think the whole bar would turn into a shoot out...i think the guy stepping out of line would be more likely to stand down. I don't care if someone else conceals their gun...
I also think it should be on the gun industry to self regulate the way the acohol companies decided not to advertize on TV. Law enforcement should be in charge of keeping weapons out of the hands of known criminals (convicted). the five day waiting period is a good idea...Gun training and respect should be taught by arent's gun clubs and private training organizations. instead of a license, proof of identity and proof of completeion of some type of class should be all that is required for a gun purchase...yes law enforcement should be notified, and a background check should be done during the waiting period.
This is not so different from the current laws...I'm not sure how the laws work exactly these days...i don't carry or own a gun...it's illegal in chicago...the one place near here i'd want one so i don't really bother.
as for vests and silencers...i agree with tydon. vests are fine...they are protection...silencers and flash suppressors strike me as someone trying to do something aggressive, and in secret.
I think we should go back to the ol west. You piss me off? We go out in the street and shoot each other.
Doesn't that completely ignore the whole 'room full of drunk people' part of that situation?
Guns have this nasty habit of killing police officers which is something I am whole heartedly against, for obvious reasons. I think the more taken off the street the better. I don't think anyone should have a gun.