a question to US gun owners.

[monostat]

Basically. There are some practical reasons for it. The AR style rifles are ergonomically better and easier to customize. Functionally though, there is no real difference.

This, people mod the shit out of AR's. If you want to see some crazy stuff check out this http://gizmodo.com/5100331/a-chainsa...killing-weapon

[Porcell]

This, people mod the shit out of AR's. If you want to see some crazy stuff check out this http://gizmodo.com/5100331/a-chainsa...killing-weapon

And you know how many people are likely to have been killed, or ever be killed, by that rifle? Likely none. Lawful gun owner who's probably spent a couple thousand dollars on that gun, and it TOTALLY SAFE.

And some people would want to pass legislation to make owning that illegal. THAT is what I am against.

Maybe that's another angle to look at? There are over 300 million guns in the US and nearly 50% of households have a firearm in it. Assuming each (of the ~300k per year) violent crime using a firearm is using a unique firearm (which is of course highly unlikely), that's still less than 1% of the firearms in the US being use for criminal purposes. So 99% of the guns in the US are not used in crimes.

[Raldazzar]

as a Brit who has spent time in the US, I absolutely think Gun control is a bad idea.

I saw the riots in london the other year with my own eyes.. horrible scum parading the streets with no fear of retribution, targetting not only huge corporations, but small mom and pop type stores.. and they could do nothing.

now. you put the potential for both sides to have firearms.. and the situation changes. sure, it puts them in the hands of the bad. but it also puts them in the hands of the good. so the chances are if you tried to rob the little family run place.. the family and all the concerned neighbours/friends will be right there to make sure that doesnt happen.

Its the same way I view nukes. countries would be too smart to use them against one another.. but they are there to have. to say 'dont try and fuck my shit up, i have that same shit' and.. it works.

simply put.

if you WERE a criminal, and you were going to rob somebody (you have a pistol.) what would make you think twice? the fact they have nothing to protect themselves with? or the prospect that the person you are about to rob, might just have a 12 guage under his bed.

guns good. these laws are great in theory, but in practice all they do is restrict the law abiding people who wouldnt use their firearms badly in the first place!

[monostat]

And you know how many people are likely to have been killed, or ever be killed, by that rifle? Likely none. Lawful gun owner who's probably spent a couple thousand dollars on that gun, and it TOTALLY SAFE.

And some people would want to pass legislation to make owning that illegal. THAT is what I am against.

Maybe that's another angle to look at? There are over 300 million guns in the US and nearly 50% of households have a firearm in it. Assuming each (of the ~300k per year) violent crime using a firearm is using a unique firearm (which is of course highly unlikely), that's still less than 1% of the firearms in the US being use for criminal purposes. So 99% of the guns in the US are not used in crimes.

I'm a gun owner and believe in responsible ownership. I'm in no way somebody that wants to take away those rights, just thought it was a crazy mod for an AR.

[time0ut]

as a Brit who has spent time in the US, I absolutely think Gun control is a bad idea.
/snip

This put a smile on my face. You get it. The people who want to effectively ban guns are not living in reality. The world is a bad and dangerous place.

[Daelak]

I'm not sure what you are asking. It's a gun, that's how they look. It has a stock that your shoulder goes on, it has a grip that you hold on to, it has a place for the magazine to go in, and it has a barrel that the bullet goes down. In the middle of these four pieces is the receiver where the magic happens. What exactly do you want a rifle to look like? Would it be less scary for you if it were pink instead of black?

Well the other semi-hunting rifles look like traditional hunting rifles, while some of them look like military-style build.

[time0ut]

Well the other semi-hunting rifles look like traditional hunting rifles, while some of them look like military-style build.

And style is really all it is. One style looks scarier (or cooler) than the other. That is why we get kind of angry when people talk about 'assault weapon' bans. It has no basis in reality. Its pure fear based politics. Its like banning cars with spoilers. They look faster, but under the hood they are the same.

[Nos]

Sure it's been addressed but:

Also another question,why do you actually need AK-47 or machine guns,i mean i can undersatnd having a handgun or a shotgun but machine guns?Isnt that a bit extreme?

#1: You cannot legally own a fully automatic weapon in the US without very special permits. (In every state I know of).

#2: If you have been convicted of any kind of felony, ever, you are not allowed to own a firearm. The penalties for this are pretty tough (getting caught anywhere near a gun while being a convicted felon).

IF you guys are honest law abiding citizens hard gun controling laws wont make a diference right?

Not sure what you're trying to say by this. Seems like an insult implying that anyone owning a fire-arm is not really an "honest law abiding citizen." But either way, depends on what kind of laws you're talking about. Must keep in a safe or own a permit? That'd be expensive, and I personally wouldn't be ok with it, but I could see why. I wouldn't like it, because it's money I don't have, and it turns hunting from an affordable, peaceful past-time into a major money sink. Also, it'd be essentially impossible to retrieve a gun from a safe in a home-defense type situation. All legal guns are registered anyways (newer ones at least).

So those would already be making a difference, yes. A lot of people would no longer be able to afford fire-arms for hunting or sport. And those people aren't the crazies who stockpile ammunition and go on shooting sprees. Those dumb asses are determined, and would save up the money anyways. They're not going to say "Ah, but I might miss that 1k once I'm done with my murder-suicide rampage." The people who won't own guns anymore are the responsible families who can weigh out their bills and say: "Yeah, looks like I won't be able to hunt this year. No venison, guys." or "Sorry, jimmy (or insert any other child name) looks like you can't shoot sporting clays with your shotgun anymore. I know you liked belonging to the 4H club, and had a lot of friends and all, but just can't afford it."

The same goes for jacking up the price on ammunition. Looking at videos of people carrying fully automatics and tear gas canisters and go only knows what else, should only show you how futile that trying to enforce gun control actually is in a country this large, this populace, where guns have been collected for this long. Illegality has nothing to do with it. People will find a way if they want to. There are people carrying in fully automatic weapons over the border each and every day. We're trying our damnedest just to stop that, but guess what. It's not working.

Trying to take the guns away from everyone in America will result only in public discontent and a MASSIVE amount of money spent. Will gun crimes go down? A little, sure, after many years. Will crime in general go down? Probably not. I hear about more local stabbings than shootings, frankly. There are too many illegal guns, already off the radar, that will /not/ be turned in. Do you think someone who went through the trouble of getting a gun that's not in the system if going to hand it over because someone asks? No. They're not. And 9 times out of 10, when there's a shooting in this area, either the firearm is an illegal one, or the person doing the shooting was a convicted felon. In either case, it was already illegal for them. They just don't care.

It's a sign of our sick culture. Not because movies glorify gun violence, but because of people. Because of the good, law-abiding citizens. Because we've become selfish and self-centered. People who are still immature children are raising kids of their own, and looking at them as nothing but a burden. What do you think happens when children are raised like that? They feel no love, no connect, no comradery from their peers or parents? Humans are social creatures. We have to find a place to fit in. We /have/ to find recognition and attention. It's the way 99% of us are wired. Most kids overcome these adverse situations, some do not. Some look for attention however they can get it and try to lash back at a world they feel owes them something or hurt them. Is it there fault? Absolutely. Is it the fault of other people in specific? Probably not. Is it the fault of our society in general becoming cold and sociopathic in nature? Yeah. I have to believe it's that one. Just a little.


So. I know that was long, but you wanted the full thoughts of your average joe gun owner. I'm 21. I'm married. I'm about to finish my bachelor's degree in civil engineering. I was raised around guns. I was raised in the south, and that's my two cents. Trying to limit guns, IN THIS COUNTRY (I know it works in other countries, and that's great), just doesn't seem feasible to me. I feel the only things it will hurt are actual sporting and defensive uses of the gun, essentially /ensuring/ that it's useful for nothing but crime.

Just my 2 cents from growing up in a culture where I've seen them used for right and wrong.

---------- Post added 2012-08-23 at 10:30 AM ----------

That is why we get kind of angry when people talk about 'assault weapon' bans. It has no basis in reality. Its pure fear based politics. Its like banning cars with spoilers. They look faster, but under the hood they are the same.

And favorite quote of the day goes to you, sir.

[Deleted]

as a Brit who has spent time in the US, I absolutely think Gun control is a bad idea.

I saw the riots in london the other year with my own eyes.. horrible scum parading the streets with no fear of retribution, targetting not only huge corporations, but small mom and pop type stores.. and they could do nothing.

now. you put the potential for both sides to have firearms.. and the situation changes. sure, it puts them in the hands of the bad. but it also puts them in the hands of the good. so the chances are if you tried to rob the little family run place.. the family and all the concerned neighbours/friends will be right there to make sure that doesnt happen.

Its the same way I view nukes. countries would be too smart to use them against one another.. but they are there to have. to say 'dont try and fuck my shit up, i have that same shit' and.. it works.

simply put.

if you WERE a criminal, and you were going to rob somebody (you have a pistol.) what would make you think twice? the fact they have nothing to protect themselves with? or the prospect that the person you are about to rob, might just have a 12 guage under his bed.

guns good. these laws are great in theory, but in practice all they do is restrict the law abiding people who wouldnt use their firearms badly in the first place!

Fear of death doesn't deter criminals. Never has, never will. Every capital punishment report proves that.

It's idiotic to think giving everyone access to guns somehow makes the world a safer place. Death statistics in the US prove that.

The only thing that changes in your scenario is that a criminal will make sure to arm him/herself before robbing something rather than relying on intimidation and threat of violence as they'd do in other cases.

You know, criminals only feels the need to arm themselves when they expect armed opposition.



It always comes down to the same circular logic. People want to own guns so they protect themselves from people with guns. Nobody likes to bring a knife to a gunfight. If you don't see that as a problem, then you're just as stupid as all other gun-nuts in America.

[Daelak]

And style is really all it is. One style looks scarier (or cooler) than the other. That is why we get kind of angry when people talk about 'assault weapon' bans. It has no basis in reality. Its pure fear based politics. Its like banning cars with spoilers. They look faster, but under the hood they are the same.

When can you use a semi-automatic hunting rifle? Here in Tennessee I think you can only use it for a couple of months during deer hunting season, the rest is for bows, then black powder, then traditional rifle. I know wild boar is always open season, and I guess you could use these weapons for them, but for duck you cannot.

[melodramocracy]

I want to ask...why not make gun laws Draconian.

Because, much like prohibition in the past, and current drug / gambling / prostitution / etc laws, the illegality of any of these things isn't really a hurdle to anyone who wants to partake in them. The only effect they really have is the promotion of criminal activity.

In the case of gun laws, making it tougher for the average citizen to own one simply means that criminals will have much better odds. That's it.

[Nos]

Fear of death doesn't deter criminals. Never has, never will. Every capital punishment report proves that.

It's idiotic to think giving everyone access to guns somehow makes the world a safer place. Death statistics in the US prove that.

The only thing that changes in your scenario is that a criminal will make sure to arm him/herself before robbing something rather than relying on intimidation and threat of violence as they'd do in other cases.

You know, criminals only feels the need to arm themselves when they expect armed opposition.



It always comes down to the same circular logic. People want to own guns so they protect themselves from people with guns. Nobody likes to bring a knife to a gunfight. If you don't see that as a problem, then you're just as stupid as all other gun-nuts in America.

Oh hey! I'm sorry, but if you read the OP's post, you're not welcome here. Please don't turn this into a nation-bashing thing.

Capitol punishment is not the same thing as the potential for a store owner to have a shotgun. Not by a long shot. Especially when most people just die on death row anyways.

of course it doesn't make it safer. But we already did it, and there's no turning back now, unless you want America to go all 1984.

The criminals are already armed. Illegally, if you'd read my post.

If you're naive enough to believe that we can honestly restrict people from getting a gun if they wanted it within the US, then you should probably come stay a while. It's impossible. We can't even keep the already illegal guns in check, and you want them to suddenly go on a manhunt for hundreds of thousands of more? Not gonna work. Not possible.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because, much like prohibition in the past, and current drug / gambling / prostitution / etc laws, the illegality of any of these things isn't really a hurdle to anyone who wants to partake in them. The only effect they really have is the promotion of criminal activity.

In the case of gun laws, making it tougher for the average citizen to own one simply means that criminals will have much better odds. That's it.

"People will always do it/always find a way," is probably one of the silliest arguments I've heard. Just because there were moonshiners and bootleggers back in the day did not mean that it did not drastically curb the use of alcohol. In every other first world country that has strict gun control laws, statistics show that while gun crimes do still occur, they are far lower than they are in the US. People who think that the entire point of gun control laws are to completely stop gun crimes don't get it. Significantly reducing it is a huge step in the right direction. The number of incidents where people successfully defend themselves with a self defense gun is incredibly small.

[Nos]

"People will always do it/always find a way," is probably one of the silliest arguments I've heard. Just because there were moonshiners and bootleggers back in the day did not mean that it did not drastically curb the use of alcohol. In every other first world country that has strict gun control laws, statistics show that while gun crimes do still occur, they are far lower than they are in the US. People who think that the entire point of gun control laws are to completely stop gun crimes don't get it. Significantly reducing it is a huge step in the right direction. The number of incidents where people successfully defend themselves with a self defense gun is incredibly small.

I already addressed in my post that, frankly, it's a different game when you're talking about America. You can't just cherry-pick countries and say "OH LOOK! THIS LAW WORKED HERE, SO IT WILL WORK FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!" Doesn't work that way. There was also a country who operated without a police force for many years, and their crime rates actually went down. Should we apply that template to the whole modern world?

And it did significantly curb the amount of alcohol taken in, but that's a different thing altogether. Consuming alcohol was legal, shooting people is not. So when consuming alcohol became illegal, the people who were concerned with not going to jail/getting in trouble/obeying the law, stopped drinking. Ergo, consumption went down. Banning guns will result in the people who are concerned with not going to jail/getting in trouble/obeying the law turning their guns in. These were the people who /already/ weren't shooting people. The people who want to shoot people won't care. Do you see the difference? The legal gun activities will become extinct. You know, hunting, sporting, defense. But that's it. The illegal ones will stay. Or skyrocket! Did you ever think what most of our sociopathic society might do? In this struggling economy? When faced with "Either hand your guns over and take the loss, or sell them to shady bitch in this back alley for premium cash. It /probably/ won't come back to bite you."

[Faroth]

"People will always do it/always find a way," is probably one of the silliest arguments I've heard. Just because there were moonshiners and bootleggers back in the day did not mean that it did not drastically curb the use of alcohol. In every other first world country that has strict gun control laws, statistics show that while gun crimes do still occur, they are far lower than they are in the US. People who think that the entire point of gun control laws are to completely stop gun crimes don't get it. Significantly reducing it is a huge step in the right direction. The number of incidents where people successfully defend themselves with a self defense gun is incredibly small.

Depends on where you were. Montreal, Canada exploded during prohibition because Americans went there to the nightclubs.

As for drastically curbing alcohol elsewhere in the US, Al Capone would not likely have risen as he did if prohibition wasn't in effect. The most violent days of the "gangsters" in the US largely revolved around prohibition and bootlegging alcohol. The criminals made a helluva lot of money thanks to that whole thing.

I assume illegal gunrunners would see a boost in business if guns were completely outlawed.

I'd like those who point to reduced gun crimes in other countries to provide more data on criminal activity in that country. My friend in Canada once told me, in response to a gun control question, "Nah, here you're more likely to get robbed with a baseball bat."

[Zarc]

The problem with strict laws on guns is actually a simple one for the US at least. What you do is make it harder for law abbiding citizens to get the weapons they have the right to own vs. a criminal that will steal them or buy them illegally and use them in a crime. See you will never "get rid of" guns from a world standpoint. Last time I checked there are currently in the billions of AK style rifles in circulation world wide. Criminals will always get guns and if they are in the US it will be done in an illegal manner.

So if you look at it like this, a criminal (felon or what ever) that buys guns does so now illegally. So gun laws being strict do not effect him at all.

... of course gun laws being strict effects criminals. Do you think it's random that the homocide rate per 100,000 people is 1.2 in the UK and Ireland, 1.0 in Sweden and Australia, 0.9 in New Zealand, 0.8 in Germany and Spain, 0.4 in Japan, and figures just like those for the rest of Western Europe while that of the US is higher than that of Palestine, Libya And Afgahnistan and the same as Yemen at 4.2 - almost 4 up to 8 times higher than that of Western European and similar developed countries that are also part of the world. Even Canada, who shares a massive border with the US where tons of weapons are in circulation only have a homicide rate of 1.6, slighly higher than similar developed nations with gun control.

Of course you will not ever get rid of all guns, but were guns illegal there would be alot fewer in circulation and it would be alot harder to get hold of them, and to keep them out of the reach and destruction of the police aswell. So your average street gang youth, petty thief, angry husband or aggressive drunk will not have the capacity to instantly kill another person from a distance in the heat of their adrenaline rush. It doesn't take much to connect the dots when you also know that the rate of people in the US is alot higher than similar developed countries too, because whilst in the US some person might have shot a guy in another country where that person would not have had that gun in his hand his aggression might have ended "only" with assault, and he would have gone to jail for a couple of years while in the US he would sit there for 60 years serving a life sentence.

But if you insist on having a society where people can own a whole bunch of machine gun rifles for their "self-desense" just because of some laws some people who lived 200 years ago made up at a time where there were no machine guns and a revultion fueled fears of British attempts of re-establish the rule of their lost colonies then that is your choice. If I was an American citizen I would vote for my legislative to change that constitution.

[Eggoman]

well seeing a video the other day which shoed a guy holding a gun(smg i think)and walking down the road till police stopped him(which was obviously a bait to make police act extreme but unfortunatelly for him the police officer was smarter than him)
I want to ask...why not make gun laws Draconian.Since you take it for protection why not make those laws quite hard on people that brake them and the requirements at a big level...i mean if i had guns in my home i would surelly be pro-gun control because i wouldnt like any weirdo having an armory in his house...IF you guys are honest law abiding citizens hard gun controling laws wont make a diference right?

Also another question,why do you actually need AK-47 or machine guns,i mean i can undersatnd having a handgun or a shotgun but machine guns?Isnt that a bit extreme?

this is not a troll post i really like to see the reasoning behind this culture.So if someone only has to say "derp derp derp gun is bad" or "derp derp derp gun is good"please dont respond.I want answers from seemingly regular joes with guns.

The argument of "need" is pretty invalid. You don't "need" a lot of things, you don't "need" TV, you don't "need" a specific religion, you don't "Need" to play violent video games, you don't "need" to watch violent movies and so on and so on. So you can't base an argument off of needing something because that gets trumped by personal freedom in America.

Second, gun control is pretty tight as it is and the penalties are very severe for the average joe who has a family he wants to see everyday. You can not own a machine gun without going through ALOT of paper work, in some states you just can't unless you have very special paper work. Gun control is probably as tight as it can get without going to a full ban.

A full ban would be pretty much a death sentence for the civilian population. This is because guns flow freely from Mexico and as soon as criminals hear that no law abiding citizen in America has a gun they will arm themselves and rob people freely. You can not control the criminals from having guns period, look at drugs in America as an example of a illegal substance trying to be controlled.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I already addressed in my post that, frankly, it's a different game when you're talking about America. You can't just cherry-pick countries and say "OH LOOK! THIS LAW WORKED HERE, SO IT WILL WORK FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!" Doesn't work that way. There was also a country who operated without a police force for many years, and their crime rates actually went down. Should we apply that template to the whole modern world?

Something only working in one country is one thing. Something that works in every country that does it (correctly) though? We might have a trend!

The feeling of needing to own a gun out of necessity to protect oneself comes from an irrational fear. A gun is more of an emotional comfort for most people than anything else, and guns owned for "self defense" are much more likely to be used in a domestic dispute than in actual self defense. When arguments occur between family or friends, if a fire arm is not present it will more than likely defuse when tempers settle, however a fire arm being present often causes such arguments to escalate and often ends in violence or even use of the gun. I have many family members/friends who own guns for self defense, and I haven't heard of a single one of them using them in self defense, and have heard plenty of stories about how a gun was pulled out to try and settle an argument, and in a few cases ended up with one or the other being shot.

Using a tool of violence to keep the peace is like fighting for peace, fucking for virginity, etc.

[GarGar]

"People will always do it/always find a way," is probably one of the silliest arguments I've heard. Just because there were moonshiners and bootleggers back in the day did not mean that it did not drastically curb the use of alcohol. In every other first world country that has strict gun control laws, statistics show that while gun crimes do still occur, they are far lower than they are in the US. People who think that the entire point of gun control laws are to completely stop gun crimes don't get it. Significantly reducing it is a huge step in the right direction. The number of incidents where people successfully defend themselves with a self defense gun is incredibly small.

Pardon me, but alcohol consumption rose dramatically during US Prohibition, especially among women and underage persons.

You can say that gun crimes are lower in controlled countries than in the US, and that would be true. However you can also say that crime overall is lower in those countries than in the US. There are more gun crimes because there are more crimes. It's not the controlled countries gun laws that reduce gun crimes, it's other social factors that reduce crime in general.

[Daelak]

... of course gun laws being strict effects criminals. Do you think it's random that the homocide rate per 100,000 people is 1.2 in the UK and Ireland, 1.0 in Sweden and Australia, 0.9 in New Zealand, 0.8 in Germany and Spain, 0.4 in Japan, and figures just like those for the rest of Western Europe while that of the US is higher than that of Palestine, Libya And Afgahnistan and the same as Yemen at 4.2 - almost 4 up to 8 times higher than that of Western European and similar developed countries that are also part of the world. Even Canada, who shares a massive border with the US where tons of weapons are in circulation only have a homicide rate of 1.6, slighly higher than similar developed nations with gun control.

Of course you will not ever get rid of all guns, but were guns illegal there would be alot fewer in circulation and it would be alot harder to get hold of them, and to keep them out of the reach and destruction of the police aswell. So your average street gang youth, petty thief, angry husband or aggressive drunk will not have the capacity to instantly kill another person from a distance in the heat of their adrenaline rush.

But if you insist on having a society where people can own a whole bunch of machine gun rifles for their "self-desense" just because of some laws some people who lived 200 years ago made up at a time where there were no machine guns and a revultion fueled fears of British attempts of re-establish the rule of their lost colonies then that is your choice. If I was an American citizen I would vote for my legislative to change that constitution.

I read that law enforcement agencies want a ban because it would be easier for them to conduct their searches and monitoring in a black market rather than an open market. They could do all their borderline illegal and unethical procedures without worrying about legal ramifications because they are already illegal, giving them a lot more freedom to catch the large straw purchasers and the gangs that procure them.