Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[josh987654321]

Said the Hatfields to the McCoys…

lol

 

[FrDavid96]

I really am undecided on the whole thing.

For starters, I think people do and should have the right to owning a gun. But, I also think that it’s a good idea to not allow the immediate purchase of a gun. Background checks and waiting periods are smart, in my opinion. Then again, that won’t stop a criminal from getting a gun. And, it is a good idea to be able to protect your family from an intruder. But, then again, it’s at least 5 times a year in my city alone that a story comes out of a child being killed in their home from an accidental firing of the gun either by a sibling or the parent or themselves, bless their heart. So you would have to keep your gun locked in a safe place. But then if someone breaks into your house, do you really have time to go to your safe, punch in the code, quietly remove the gun and defend yourself? It seems unlikely to me. But, they’re great and necessary for hunting and I fully support hunting. But does one necessarily need an assault weapon for any real reason? Well, I suppose for militia if the government were to take over and go corrupt. But, they’ll likely wipe out your militia army with drones or biochemical warfare which renders those assault rifles relatively useless.

…In other words, totally undecided.

Waiting periods are a farce. They are nothing more than a way to intimidate potential buyers and discourage people from buying. A background check only takes a few seconds----although in recent years that system has been manipulated by adding unnecessary wait times. There’s no reason to delay a purchase after the potential buyer has already been cleared by a background check.

And the truth is that there’s really no such thing as an “assault weapon” that’s just a fabricated term that could mean anything the speaker wants it to mean.

 

[robwar]

Waiting periods are a farce. They are nothing more than a way to intimidate potential buyers and discourage people from buying. A background check only takes a few seconds----although in recent years that system has been manipulated by adding unnecessary wait times. There’s no reason to delay a purchase after the potential buyer has already been cleared by a background check.

And the truth is that there’s really no such thing as an “assault weapon” that’s just a fabricated term that could mean anything the speaker wants it to mean.

Is that the same reason why the media has down played the recent high school stabbings is because it was a knife and not a gun and doesn’t fit the political agenda.

 

[LongingSoul]

FIne, I missed that post.

However, your post #12 does something which I explicitly warned against in the OP: do not define what “pro gun” or “anti gun” are.

You can define “pro gun” all you want, as “pro handguns for private defense”

However, you are incorrect to say that that is what “pro gun” means IN THIS POLL. This is my poll, and I say that those terms have no definition in this poll.

You can’t just apply a definition to the poll, to influence how people vote on it… Its my poll, and in this poll, the terms are undefined. I thought that was made clear in the OP.

lol, I’m guessing you’re quite young. If one demands an apology of others, it is noble to give back when one is deserved rather than launch into another accusation to avoid.

 

[tafan]

I am a gun owner, and voted undecided. Mainly since pro-gun and anti-gun were undefined. Too many ways to interpret it.

I think people should be able to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and sport. I consider the owning a gun for self-defense a very bad idea in most cases. I would, if at all possible, move before I would live somewhere that I thought a gun was needed for protection. But I realize moving is not possible for everyone, so it may be necessary in those cases.
I have lived around guns my whole life (grew up on a farm/ranch where we had a .22 in every work pickup). I own several, enjoy shooting them with my kids at the range. Used to hunt birds quite a bit, but no time anymore.

And the gun culture has changed for worse, by far IMO. I go to the shooting range and I see a lot of high power handguns and assault type guns. When I was a kid, these would have been looked upon with scorn by 99% of gun owners. You had a gun, of the caliber required, that was suitable for the type of hunting you were going to do. THe only people who owned military type firearms were those who collected them. And I never shot a handgun until I was in college (and I still don’t enjoy it).

I think we have way too many handguns floating around. Anyone who does not think violence in the US, compared to other countries, is higher as a result of our current gun culture is kidding themselves.
I think all guns should be registered. Background checks are needed.
Reasonable gun laws are needed.
BTW: I have never voted for a democrat in my life, so don’t accuse me of being liberal.

 

[josh987654321]

Waiting periods are a farce. They are nothing more than a way to intimidate potential buyers and discourage people from buying. A background check only takes a few seconds----although in recent years that system has been manipulated by adding unnecessary wait times. There’s no reason to delay a purchase after the potential buyer has already been cleared by a background check.

And the truth is that there’s really no such thing as an “assault weapon” that’s just a fabricated term that could mean anything the speaker wants it to mean.

When I say “Assault Weapon” I mean “Assault Rifle” and there is a list of them here if you like -

List of assault rifles

I don’t know what the law is like in America on guns, I have heard that it is very lenient, I simply believe that there is no need for a citizen to purchase an Assault Rifle or any other kind of military weapon, because the main purpose of those weapons is to kill, not animals, but other humans.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Brendan]

I don’t know what the law is like in America on guns, I have heard that it is very lenient, I simply believe that there is no need for a citizen to purchase an Assault Rifle or any other kind of military weapon, because the main purpose of those weapons is to kill, not animals, but other humans.

Thank you for reading
Josh

It is just about impossible for a civilian to own an Assault Rifle, as those are, by definition, capable of fully automatic fire.

It IS possible to purchase rifles that are similar in physical appearance, but do not have the military specifications.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

lol, I’m guessing you’re quite young. If one demands an apology of others, it is noble to give back when one is deserved rather than launch into another accusation to avoid.

I’m not going to give you my age, thanks for laughing at me, and assuming I’m “quite young”. Why don’t you just go ahead and define that too?

EDIT: My age should have nothing to do with the content of what I post. That is a personal attack. You are attacking my person. Therefore, I’m reporting you for that.

Pro gun in this poll means pro handguns for private defense.

No. No it does not. Not in this poll. I mean, I understand this isn’t a scientific poll, but as a political science major, I like to try and practice some good polling methodology. And, in my OP, I clearly stated this:
RC Sojourner:

I will not define “pro-gun” or “anti-gun” in my survey.

I really hope no one votes on this poll, thinking that there was a definition on “pro gun” for the poll… because there was not.

You should apologize, because you are ruining the poll. You are violating the terms of the poll. DOn’t define the terms. You might not care about polling methodology, but I do.

I mean, that should be obvious in the thorough spectrum of answers I provided. And then you had to criticize that too, well you should’ve just voted “Other, not a gun owner”, that would’ve fit you like a glove.

Instead, you had to criticize my methodology. Why don’t you try to make a double tiered poll? I made a double tiered poll, and you’re just ruining it. Thanks a lot.

Way to ruin my day.

 

[FrDavid96]

When I say “Assault Weapon” I mean “Assault Rifle” and there is a list of them here if you like -

List of assault rifles

I don’t know what the law is like in America on guns, I have heard that it is very lenient, I simply believe that there is no need for a citizen to purchase an Assault Rifle or any other kind of military weapon, because the main purpose of those weapons is to kill, not animals, but other humans.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I checked your article. It says this:
“However, in media firearms reporting the term “assault rifle” usually refers to visual appearance rather than internal functionality.”

In other words, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. It’s just not a legitimate term.

We have very little in the way of federal laws with regard to guns, at least from the individual’s perspective. Most federal laws deal with issues that just don’t affect an individual person (like manufacturing and transporting laws). Anyone buying a firearm in a store or from a dealer must pass a criminal background check (private transfers vary by state). Anything fully automatic is regulated by the feds.

Most of our firearms laws exist on the state level, and those vary considerably. In Massachusetts and California for example, it’s nearly impossible to own a gun. In others like Alaska and Florida, it’s relatively easy.

There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to own firearms (even the so-called “assault” types) that have nothing to do with wanting to kill someone else.

 

[Brendan]

If you live rurally, you own a gun anyway but only the very best marksmen could ever hit a squiggly snake with a shot.

Around here, we use pistols that can chamber .45 long Colt. Those can also chamber .410 shotgun shells. Those were really well on snakes and with the short barrel of the pistol, any average shooter can dispatch a snake.

Conversely, if you are a hiker\backwoodsperson, you can load it with .45Long and have good defense against bear.

hinterlandoutfitters.com/heritage-rough-rider-revolver-rr45410bs4-41045-long-colt-cocobolo-wood-grip-finish-p-37408.html

 

[josh987654321]

It is just about impossible for a civilian to own an Assault Rifle, as those are, by definition, capable of fully automatic fire.

may I ask Is it legal though?

It IS possible to purchase rifles that are similar in physical appearance, but do not have the military specifications.

Are they still automatic? because you can get mags that hold 150 rounds of 5.56x45mm

If it were up to me, I would ban all Assault rifle type weapons, all automatics, and all concealable handguns and high powered weapons or explosives etc like RPG’s (If they are not already illegal). I would be especially looking to criminalize Mac 10’s Uzi’s and Glock 18’s as I believe there is no need for them what so ever.

I probably wouldn’t go quite as harsh as Australia, but I do believe that the gun laws in America (as I have heard) are far too lenient, I believe people simply don’t need such fire power.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[FrDavid96]

Here in the US we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of the press. We have a Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I am more worried by having a next-door neighbor who subscribes to the New York Times than I am about having a next-door neighbor who owns a shotgun.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

When I say “Assault Weapon” I mean “Assault Rifle” and there is a list of them here if you like -

List of assault rifles

I don’t know what the law is like in America on guns, I have heard that it is very lenient, I simply believe that there is no need for a citizen to purchase an Assault Rifle or any other kind of military weapon, because the main purpose of those weapons is to kill, not animals, but other humans.

Thank you for reading
Josh

If you lived in Syria, wouldn’t you want an Assault Rifle, to kill people, that is?

No ones saying that a fully automatic weapon is meant to hunt. Fully automatic weapons are meant to kill people. And, there are many scenarios I can imagine, where I would need one.

Can you guaratnee me that America won’t turn into a Syria or a Ukraine in the next 20 years?

Did you know that Syria, under Assad, was hailed as one of the most stable countries of the Middle East? It was hailed as an international tourism destination, and an arab nation which was introducing considerable political and economic reforms.

Yes, Syria, under Bashar Al Assad, was hailed as these things… now look at it… close to 150,000 dead in 3+ years.

Guarantee that the future in America doesn’t hold such a conflict. You can’t guarantee that. Therefore, there is a need to own “assault weapons”… which, I’ll consider as fully automatic.

 

[josh987654321]

I checked your article. It says this:
“However, in media firearms reporting the term “assault rifle” usually refers to visual appearance rather than internal functionality.”

In other words, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. It’s just not a legitimate term.

Okay, so in regards to functionality, May I ask, what does an AK47’s functionality lack from the standard model?

We have very little in the way of federal laws with regard to guns, at least from the individual’s perspective. Most federal laws deal with issues that just don’t affect an individual person (like manufacturing and transporting laws). Anyone buying a firearm in a store or from a dealer must pass a criminal background check (private transfers vary by state). Anything fully automatic is regulated by the feds.

Most of our firearms laws exist on the state level, and those vary considerably. In Massachusetts and California for example, it’s nearly impossible to own a gun. In others like Alaska and Florida, it’s relatively easy.

There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons to own firearms (even the so-called “assault” types) that have nothing to do with wanting to kill someone else.

Could you please give me a legitimate reason in owning an AK47?

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Here in the US we have a First Amendment that protects freedom of the press. We have a Second Amendment which protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Personally, I am more worried by having a next-door neighbor who subscribes to the New York Times than I am about having a next-door neighbor who owns a shotgun.

LOL, that made me genuinely laugh out loud. Wooh… hilarious.

You know, I’ve heard it called “The New York Slime”… lol

 

[FrDavid96]

may I ask Is it legal though?

Yes. It is legal. But it is very, very difficult. There is a lengthy and expensive application process, and the holder of a class-3 permit basically surrenders any right to privacy (the government can search your home anytime they please, with no pretense other than “we’re just checking because you have a class-3.”

Are they still automatic? because you can get mags that hold 150 rounds of 5.56x45mm

“Automatic” has nothing to do with capacity (except that it means “more than 1”)

If it were up to me, I would ban all Assault rifle type weapons, all automatics, and all concealable handguns and high powered weapons or explosives etc like RPG’s (If they are not already illegal). I would be especially looking to criminalize Mac 10’s Uzi’s and Glock 18’s as I believe there is no need for them what so ever.

I probably wouldn’t go quite as harsh as Australia, but I do believe that the gun laws in America (as I have heard) are far too lenient, I believe people simply don’t need such fire power.

Thank you for reading
Josh

None of those that you mentioned (Mac 10, Uzi or Glock 18) are available to private US citizens anyway (without a class 3).

 

[migueltojose]

When I say “Assault Weapon” I mean “Assault Rifle” and there is a list of them here if you like -

List of assault rifles

I don’t know what the law is like in America on guns, I have heard that it is very lenient, I simply believe that there is no need for a citizen to purchase an Assault Rifle or any other kind of military weapon, because the main purpose of those weapons is to kill, not animals, but other humans.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Because governments and other civil institutions are powerful and corruptible, or willfully or un-willfully manipulated. It’s not a question of if, but when. It is inevitable. Even if it is “okay” 99.999% of the time. That’s like once every 30 years. All it takes is once. Do not underestimate the power of governments. They proliferate by nature. They have no incentive to limit themselves. Why would they? Kind of silly to think they would. They can always come up with lots of reasons why they need to grow… so they can do more for us, so they can protect us from ourselves. This continual growth is very dangerous.

For this reason, we need to have the ability to arm ourselves in a manner that will protect us from the highest forms of weaponry available anywhere. Of course, this is not realistic due to money and technology… but we should at least be aware and consider the options and be armed to some degree.

 

[Brendan]

may I ask Is it legal though?

You have to get specific approval from the Federal Government, but, in that sense, it’s no different that anywhere else in the world.

Are they still automatic? because you can get mags that hold 150 rounds of 5.56x45mm

Nope

If it were up to me, I would ban all Assault rifle type weapons, all automatics,

Assault weapons are a subset of automatics, so that is somewhat redundant. The only thing that saves it from being fully reduntant is that automatics also include tripod mounted machine guns.

and all concealable handguns and high powered weapons or explosives etc like RPG’s (If they are not already illegal). I would be especially looking to criminalize Mac 10’s Uzi’s and Glock 18’s as I believe there is no need for them what so ever.

I probably wouldn’t go quite as harsh as Australia, but I do believe that the gun laws in America (as I have heard) are far too lenient, I believe people simply don’t need such fire power.

Thank you for reading
Josh

That is a logical fallacy known as an Argument from ignorance\incredulity. That because you personally cannot see needs, that none exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[SuperLuigi]

You would literally die of fright if you posted the poll in Australia!

breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/08/21/Aussie-Politician-Complains-About-U-S-Gun-Laws-But-Gun-Crime-In-Sydney-Is-Out-Of-Control

From the article:

The lesson: criminals do not pay attention to gun bans. They never have and they never will.

 

[josh987654321]

If you lived in Syria, wouldn’t you want an Assault Rifle, to kill people, that is?

Nope, Id be looking for a way out of that mess.

Also I am not advocating certain people voluntarily giving up their weapons, If I lived in a place with very lenient gun laws, I would probably own some of those guns for self defense, but if the laws were changed to criminalize those weapons for everybody, than I would be supporting that law.

No ones saying that a fully automatic weapon is meant to hunt. Fully automatic weapons are meant to kill people. And, there are many scenarios I can imagine, where I would need one.

And I believe your neighbour is thinking the same thing, so where do you draw the line? Weapon technology is only getting better.

Can you guaratnee me that America won’t turn into a Syria or a Ukraine in the next 20 years?

Nope, but I can say that arming citizens will certainly make such an outcome more likely.

Did you know that Syria, under Assad, was hailed as one of the most stable countries of the Middle East? It was hailed as an international tourism destination, and an arab nation which was introducing considerable political and economic reforms.

Yes, Syria, under Bashar Al Assad, was hailed as these things… now look at it… close to 150,000 dead in 3+ years.

And may I ask who armed it’s citizens? I think i remember reading somewhere America supplying many of the people with weapons to overthrow Assad.

Guarantee that the future in America doesn’t hold such a conflict. You can’t guarantee that. Therefore, there is a need to own “assault weapons”… which, I’ll consider as fully automatic.

Matthew 26:52-54:

52 But Jesus told him, “Put your sword away. Anyone who lives by fighting will die by fighting. 53 Don’t you know that I could ask my Father, and right away he would send me more than twelve armies of angels? 54 But then, how could the words of the Scriptures come true, which say that this must happen?”

Theres an old saying that goes “In times of peace, prepare for war” and another that goes “What we fear we create.” If you a preparing for war against your fellow citizen, may I ask what you believe your fellow citizen is doing?

Thank you for reading
Josh