Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[TEPO]

Neither are 99% of other people (myself included).

…

 

[John_Lazarus]

My thoughts are going to go all over the place, so please bear with me.

I polled “Undecided/ Other, and not a gun owner”. And for the record, I’m Canadian. We don’t have a “second amendment” here. Our country was not born of a violent rebellion, but of an act of Parliament. The US was founded on the principles of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Canada’s mission statement was “Peace, order, and good government”.

I’ve been trained in the Canadian versions of the FN FAL, M-16, Sterling SMG, and Browning 9mm pistol. I’m a really good shot with the M-16 (the scope rocks!), but I have a soft spot for the old FAL. Pistolwise, I was very good with the Browning – I put it down to having really good elbows.

Or, used to have good elbows…I’ve got disc issues and pinched nerves that make using a mouse tricky, let alone a 12-pound battle rifle.

I don’t know if I would have weapons here, to defend against crime. If I were in better health, perhaps. If I lived in the US, I might very well. In my city, the cops only started carrying sidearms in 2000.

I remember having an argument with a co-worker who was a gun enthusiast. He took the anti-gun-control side, natch; I took “pro”. He said, “You don’t think people should be allowed to own guns?” I said, “No, I don’t think you should be allowed to own guns.”

Final note, and this is no offense to my brethren south of 49: I might consider arming myself if I felt threatened by government tyranny. But it may also be to fight off an incursion from the South. I think there may still be hard feelings over the whole 1812 thing.

 

[FrDavid96]

My thoughts are going to go all over the place, so please bear with me.

I polled “Undecided/ Other, and not a gun owner”. And for the record, I’m Canadian. We don’t have a “second amendment” here. Our country was not born of a violent rebellion, but of an act of Parliament. The US was founded on the principles of “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Canada’s mission statement was “Peace, order, and good government”.

I’ve been trained in the Canadian versions of the FN FAL, M-16, Sterling SMG, and Browning 9mm pistol. I’m a really good shot with the M-16 (the scope rocks!), but I have a soft spot for the old FAL. Pistolwise, I was very good with the Browning – I put it down to having really good elbows.

Or, used to have good elbows…I’ve got disc issues and pinched nerves that make using a mouse tricky, let alone a 12-pound battle rifle.

I don’t know if I would have weapons here, to defend against crime. If I were in better health, perhaps. If I lived in the US, I might very well. In my city, the cops only started carrying sidearms in 2000.

I remember having an argument with a co-worker who was a gun enthusiast. He took the anti-gun-control side, natch; I took “pro”. He said, “You don’t think people should be allowed to own guns?” I said, “No, I don’t think you should be allowed to own guns.”

Final note, and this is no offense to my brethren south of 49: I might consider arming myself if I felt threatened by government tyranny. But it may also be to fight off an incursion from the South. I think there may still be hard feelings over the whole 1812 thing.

Don’t worry, we got over the whole 1812 thing a long time ago (well, mostly). We just see you as the “other” colonies who haven’t yet decided to join us in throwing out the English monarchy. The invitation still stands…

The whole 2nd Amendment thing is not just about defending ourselves against a tyrannical government, or even about defending against crime. What really matters is the principle of the thing.

We have rights. The end.

The government exists to secure our rights, not to take them away. That is what really bothers us about gun control. It’s less about “I want to keep my gun” and more about “I want to keep my right to own a gun.”

 

[Robert_Sock]

Blanket rules always reflect a lack of trust in others. This lack of trust stems from a lack of love -in seeing others as ‘cold’ who aren’t like ‘we’ are.

…but then again, a lot of people fall into statistics, and focus on what little Johnny or jimmy did last summer and abandon seeing the big picture. Personally, I’m not interested in statistics at all.

Then you must not believe in science at all, which may not be a bad thing. Place your faith in God!

LOVE!

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m not necessarily against gun ownership, but I think being “responsible” goes well beyond taking gun classes. It takes a certain individual who is highly disciplined and lacks anger, hatred and rage. This does not only apply to the gun owner, but his household and personal environment as well, as family members or a friend may gain access to the gun and use it to kill themselves or some other family member. The high incidence of murder and suicides within the domestic settings is alarming, indeed. Gun ownership should not be a right so that any wacko can own one, but a privilege.

LOVE!

 

[Eruvande]

You are terrified of an inanimate object? That is a hallmark of an irrational fear. I don’t think national policies should be basis of an national policy.

It’s not an irrational fear when that inanimate object could be used to kill in an instant, even by accident.

 

[Robert_Sock]

In a world with most of its citizens under the power of Satan, do we really need to supply them with guns?

LOVE!

 

[Brendan]

It’s not an irrational fear when that inanimate object could be used to kill in an instant, even by accident.

Such is the case for a car as well then. Or kitchen knives, even a baseball or cricket bat. Do you object when those are stored at or near your house?

 

[Eruvande]

Funnily enough I don’t drive, partly because I am quite nervous of having control of something which could easily maim and kill. No, I am quite content not to be part of a big gun-owning culture, though I’m ok with it being the case elsewhere. I have friends who are big gun advocates, but like I say, the fear factor is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn’t carry, even if it were legal in my country.

 

[migueltojose]

In a world with most of its citizens under the power of Satan, do we really need to supply them with guns?

LOVE!

In such a world, the good guys need guns to protect the defenseless and innocent.
Much like a baby in the womb.

There’s a great scene in ‘To Kill A Mockingbird’ when Atticus kills a rabid dog.

We can go quote to quote from the Bible for or against war/the use of violence/self defense. Common sense/Natural Law tells me it is justified.

We all abhor violence. Television brought it home during the Vietnam War/civil rights era. Some of the things we saw were horrible, sad and could momentarily make you feel ashamed of the human race. That’s understandable. But that doesn’t diminish the necessity to walk tall and carry a big stick. The best offense is a good defense.

Individually, locally, regionally, nationally.

 

[meltzerboy]

Such is the case for a car as well then. Or kitchen knives, even a baseball or cricket bat. Do you object when those are stored at or near your house?

The inherent nature of cars, kitchen utensils, and baseball bats is not to inflict harm or kill others, nor is it as a means of protection, although all these items can be used or abused in that manner. The same cannot be said for guns, which are specifically designed both for inflicting harm on others and defending oneself from potential harm from others.

 

[Brendan]

The inherent nature of cars, kitchen utensils, and baseball bats is not to inflict harm or kill others, nor is it as a means of protection, although all these items can be used or abused in that manner. The same cannot be said for guns, which are specifically designed both for inflicting harm on others and defending oneself from potential harm from others.

I have a number that are specifically designed for breaking flying clay frisbees and others for punching holes in paper.

Do those guns count?

 

[meltzerboy]

I have a number that are specifically designed for breaking flying clay frisbees and others for punching holes in paper.

Do those guns count?

I’m not in favor of banning all guns. They serve a purpose for people who need them: police officers, hunters, shopkeepers and home owners who protect their property, etc. But the founders of the Constitution could not have had any idea when they wrote about the individual’s right to bear arms intentionally designed for protection against the tyranny of the government, that individuals would use these weapons to combat their fellow civilians, nor the proliferation of the sheer number of weapons as well as their technologically advanced destructive potency, particularly apparent in densely populated urban areas. How could they have foreseen these changes in society?

 

[Faithdancer]

One critically important aspect of gun ownership is gun safety. It is imperative that gun owners are diligent in preventing unauthorized access to their guns, including someone breaking in and stealing them. In homes where there are children guns must be kept in a locked room, preferably in a safe; there are many devices available for locking and storing guns.

It is also imperative that gun owners are properly trained in the safe use of their guns. Many qualified individuals teach courses in gun safety, including gun laws and how to safely deploy and use a gun to protect one’s home and family. I believe that training in safe storage and utilization of guns is the key to decreasing not only gun accidents but tragedies that result when unauthorized and/or incompetent individuals obtain access to firearms.

 

[InFlux]

I’m not “pro-gun” per se; I’m pro-2nd Amendment. Under which carrying a gun - amongst other arms - was deemed a protected right.

I agree. Never owned a gun myself but strongly oppose government bans, which smacks of totalitarianism. Tyrants don’t want citizens to be armed.

 

[TEPO]

In a world with most of its citizens under the power of Satan, do we really need to supply them with guns?

LOVE!

All negative energy comes from the devil -including a lack of trust in the people we think less of in life.

When we don’t trust people, we tend to always ‘take’ from them. And that’s only acceptable on an individual basis, and only for good reason. To take from a whole group (as a blanket rule) is not justifiable.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m not in favor of banning all guns. They serve a purpose for people who need them: police officers, hunters, shopkeepers and home owners who protect their property, etc. But the founders of the Constitution could not have had any idea when they wrote about the individual’s right to bear arms intentionally designed for protection against the tyranny of the government, that individuals would use these weapons to combat their fellow civilians, nor the proliferation of the sheer number of weapons as well as their technologically advanced destructive potency, particularly apparent in densely populated urban areas. How could they have foreseen these changes in society?

The founders had no concept of television, cell phones or the internet…yet they are protected under the cover of Free Speech.

 

[manualman]

We’d have a lot fewer gun deaths if MAC-10s were free to any criminal who wanted one. They look bada## in the movies, but in reality nobody has ever hit anything they were aiming at with one.

Fun aside, the issue is really filled with hysteria. Is it REALLY all that scary that my dad has a semi-automatic shotgun capable of pumping out 7 rounds as fast as he can pull the trigger 7 times? Is that really all THAT much scarier than the shoulder abuse that comes from absorbing the full recoil of 7 of 12 gage shots via a pump action? Many would consider his gun an “assault weapon” because it’s semi-auto. Silliness.

I’m fine with heavy restritions and prequalifications for gun owners perhaps stepped up rather heavily for those wanting handguns. I’d like to see a requirement that owners have adequate lockup facilities for their guns as well as MANY guns used in crimes were stolen from their original owners. But many of the anti-gun people are just so ignorant about guns that they shoot their own arguments in the foot.

 

[meltzerboy]

The founders had no concept of television, cell phones or the internet…yet they are protected under the cover of Free Speech.

I believe there are currently some ambiguous situations especially with regard to the Internet. That’s why the courts have to intervene, and sometimes new laws are enacted by Congress.

 

[pnewton]

Okay, I am one of the two weirdo’s that picked the fourth choice.

I am anti-gun. I think the are overrated for defense and dangerous. They create a greater danger to their owners than anyone the owner might encounter. The person most likely to die with your handgun is you or your family. I believe there are far better options for self-defense.

I am pro-2nd Amendment - I still do not think it is the job of the federal government, or any local government, to tell people they cannot buck the statistical odds. Everyone’s situation differs and a person should have the right to do what they think is best for them and for their defense. One thing statistics do not account for is the peace of mind some people have in their home and on their person being armed.

I own a hand gun. It is locked with a cable lock.