Should guns get banned?

[EsmeraldaX]

Es.. I have no idea either yet the NRA is against them spouting it as 'liberals taking away gun rights' and the manufacturers screaming about costs. Well, a gun is a luxury item not a necessity so if putting appropriate safety devices on them drives it the cost so be it. If you want it then pay for it.

I totally agree with you. Guns should have safety devices. There is no reason why they shouldn't.

 

[septbride2002]

No. But their parents were for obviously not locking up the guns where the small children couldn't get to them and accidentally set them off.

You are not going to change my mind. Like I said before, no gun has ever walked itself to a crowd and started firing on it's own. The people are the problem. Not the guns. Most gun owners are reasonable, responsible people. Why should everyone get punished for the actions of a few?

Exactly! People are the problem - and since we can't control People maybe we should control the types of weapons they get their hands on.

~Amanda

 

[brerrabbit]

Responsible gun owners have their guns secure. To answer how can you keep one locked up and yet still available for home protection? Ready box.
A heavy steel safe, bolted to the floor with a push button combination that allows quick access to you only loaded weapon in the house. It sits next to my side of the bed by the nightstand. Now I have that at home but I do not carry a handgun. By law I could since I have a concelled handgun liscense. I got it mainly to avoid problems transporting my handguns to and from the range.

This debate goes on and on, but I would like to point out that I as a responsible gun owner, who has many responsible gun owning friends agree with a lot of whats been said here. I would and do support the banning of assault weapons and fully automatic weapons. I don't support a ban on handguns but freely admit that if a law was passed which I would not fight that banned handguns, I would give mine up. The idocy of the two sides are this: the NRA and its die hard big money sponsors think it should be every citizens right to own a .50 caliber tripod mounted air cooled Browning Machine gun with the capacity to fire 600 rounds a minute. On the other hand the Ban the Gun bunch wants to ban my Remington pump shotgun that can hold 4 shells in the magazine and one in the chamber, which it never does because to legally hunt migratory birds as I do a plug has to be inserted to limit the magazine to two shells with one in the chamber for a total of three. According to their definition because it holds more than one shell at a time, its and assault weapon. I stongly disagree with both these views. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

 

[Ted and Holly]

Come on, you wouldn't enjoy firing an M2?

 

[septbride2002]

Honestly, I don't really see guns as a partiularly good form of protection at all.

I just don't want to see them all get banned from law abiding citizens who are using them for things like deer hunting etc. (and no, I don't hunt deer, I could not bring myself to shoot an animal). But it just rubs me the wrong way. I don't need the government to be my nanny and it seems like that's just too close to a next step where they start banning other things (swords, martial arts weapons etc.) and so on.

I also think it skirts over the issues as to why there is so much violence in this country at all? Why are there so many gangs? Why are there so many employees who snap and go on a killing spree at the office? Why do people do these things?

IMO, we have to get to the root of the problems that cause people to go killing other people in the first place. I truly think if we somehow magically got rid of all the guns, people would still kill. They'd just find something else to do it with.

And if you had read the entire thread you would have seen that the majority of posters have been talking about hand guns - and not hunting rifles.

~Amanda

 

[EsmeraldaX]

Exactly! People are the problem - and since we can't control People maybe we should control the types of weapons they get their hands on.

~Amanda

But what about the majority who we can trust with hunting rifles etc.? Why should the many be punished for the actions of a few?

 

[AllyandJack]

But what about the majority who we can trust with hunting rifles etc.? Why should the many be punished for the actions of a few?

They shouldn't....just like people on welfare shouldn't be punished because of the few that abuse the system. Right?

I know...guns kill and welfare saves...yadda yadda....I was just joking...don't want to be chastised again.

 

[septbride2002]

But what about the majority who we can trust with hunting rifles etc.? Why should the many be punished for the actions of a few?

I'm talking easily hidden hand guns. I have no issues with people wanting to keep hunting rifles. If you go back a couple of pages there is a great post by DISDUCK that excutes exactly what I'm talking about.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

They shouldn't....just like people on welfare shouldn't be punished because of the few that abuse the system. Right?

I know...guns kill and welfare saves...yadda yadda....I was just joking...don't want to be chastised again.

Are you sure you are a Republican

~Amanda

 

[AllyandJack]

Are you sure you are a Republican

~Amanda

I'm "undeclared" - I don't even have the dignity of being "independent" anymore. It's as if they're branding me "unable and/or unwilling to make up her mind."

 

[DisDuck]

Brer.. Do you support trigger-locks and/or biometric sensors on guns? Also, why does your range force you to join NRA? Is there something 'magical' that comes with being a member like automatically knowing how to shoot? And why is the NRA against gun safety devices?

 

[wvrevy]

I also think it skirts over the issues as to why there is so much violence in this country at all? Why are there so many gangs? Why are there so many employees who snap and go on a killing spree at the office? Why do people do these things?

IMO, we have to get to the root of the problems that cause people to go killing other people in the first place. I truly think if we somehow magically got rid of all the guns, people would still kill. They'd just find something else to do it with.

There's nothing wrong with root cause analysis (I kinda do it for a living). It's an essential part of the process of resolving problems. However, it is a process, not a panacea. If the guns are still readily available, there will still be plenty of people willing to use them.

Also, you may want to read through the entire thread. I've not once said that all guns should be banned outright. I think they should, but I'm not willing to try to push that. But handguns are an entirely different matter.

I'm not looking for the government to be a "nanny" and protect me from myself. I'm looking for the government to protect me from those that would wish to do me and my family harm, and banning easily concealed weapons in a good step in that direction. No one ever said that it's the final step.

 

[septbride2002]

I'm "undeclared" - I don't even have the dignity of being "independent" anymore. It's as if they're branding me "unable and/or unwilling to make up her mind."

to funny!

 

[Ted and Holly]

<snip>

and banning easily concealed weapons in a good step in that direction. No one ever said that it's the final step.

This is what people are afraid of. You may not agree, but surely you have read that opinion, right?

Ted

 

[brerrabbit]

Well the only trigger locks I know of are ones that fit in the trigger guard and basically keep the trigger from being operated and no I have no problems with those. I don't have any because I have a large gun safe where all my guns live. As far as biometrics go, I don't favor them because my family all shoots and I often shoot with friends and the system will only let one person shoot the gun. Beyond that they are complicated, expensive, and highly unreliable. As far as the NRA why they do half of what they do I can't explain. I know they are extremely saftey consious when it comes to firearms. They strongly advocate locking away guns when you are not using them, range saftey, field and hunting saftey are all strong programs within the NRA. As far as why my range requires membership. The manditory saftey training for range saftey as well as the skeet range, archery range, and air pellet gun range that are required by my club are all NRA developed and sponsored programs. Therefore since that is the program they use and each member must take them as well as refresh them each year we need an NRA membership. Beyond my dues I contribute zero dollars to the NRA because I do not agree with some of the things they do. But like any organization they do a tremendous amount of good that no one talks about because everyone focuses on the nutwings in each group that present an unfavorable view of the group as a whole. While it appears that the NRA is against certain saftey features which they are, they do not advocate a cowboy mentality of gun ownership. Many people who advocate bio metrics and some of the other proposed saftey devices have never shot guns and don't always understand the problems they create.

 

[wvrevy]

This is what people are afraid of. You may not agree, but surely you have read that opinion, right?

Ted

I think you're misreading what I meant, Ted. Banning guns would rid people of an easy way to commit a crime, but it wouldn't do away with the reason they are committing crime in the first place. Poverty and lack of opportunity lie at the root of many forms of crime, from drug abuse and dealing to armed robbery. Until those root causes are addressed, taking away the guns will only slow the tide of senseless violence, never "stop" it.

Yes, I know there are those that want to do away with all guns. In my case, I can't imagine a civilized person thinking it is "fun" to go out and kill another living creature. But that is just my personal opinion. That being the case, I would never advocate the abolition of all firearms. Rifles and shotguns aren't the threat to public safety that handguns are, even if they do carry the same potential to kill. I think the world would be a better place without them, but then, I think that about a lot of things.

 

[jen_uk]

All the people that said they keep guns in case someone breaks into their houses, why dont you just invest in better security systems to stop people breaking in in the first place? Burglars dont try and rob the houses with top security, they move on to next door where they have left a window open!
The person who said about his friend pulling a gun on the car jacker, sorry but that just high lights why guns should be banned! Property is just stuff and not worth a human life, not even the robbers life! Its what insurance is for!

 

[brerrabbit]

Someone said the majority of the posters on this thread do not advocate the banning of all guns, just handguns. Well at least seven people have said, ban them all. In addition wvrevy has been a reasonable well spoken advocate for why handguns should be banned, but even he after numerous posts admits that he would like to see all guns banned but, he's not willing to push that.

At least he is being honest. And therein lies a lot of the problem with the gun issue. As a responsible gun owner I have been forced into a position that says if I agree to ban some guns the proponents of such actions would not stop there. They would eventually want to take them all away. One victory, handguns would lead to the next logical step which would be all guns. My choice on the other side as an advocate for gun ownership is the NRA which feels it has to ask for personal ownership of rocket propelled grenades in order to comprimise at handguns. The polarization of this issue is why people like myself who want to be responsible and agree to meet in the middle are so frustrated.

 

[DisDuck]

brer.. understand your points. but if NRA would not fight so hard against 'new' safety technology maybe some of your issues could be solved. Like keypad on gun handle to enter override code for biometrics, etc. At least during election campaigns and such it seems that it is the upper echelon of the NRA that comes out on the 'against' side. So yes there is the underside involved with safety and training that no one hears about but maybe the bigwigs of NRA should spend their time on that inside of the 'button' issues.

 

[Ted and Holly]

I think you're misreading what I meant, Ted. Banning guns would rid people of an easy way to commit a crime, but it wouldn't do away with the reason they are committing crime in the first place. Poverty and lack of opportunity lie at the root of many forms of crime, from drug abuse and dealing to armed robbery. Until those root causes are addressed, taking away the guns will only slow the tide of senseless violence, never "stop" it.

Yes, I know there are those that want to do away with all guns. In my case, I can't imagine a civilized person thinking it is "fun" to go out and kill another living creature. But that is just my personal opinion. That being the case, I would never advocate the abolition of all firearms. Rifles and shotguns aren't the threat to public safety that handguns are, even if they do carry the same potential to kill. I think the world would be a better place without them, but then, I think that about a lot of things.

I know what you meant. I was blatantly over-simplifying your post. Similarly, in my opinion, to the way you over-simplify the solution to violent crime.

Banning handguns would keep lazy criminals from using a handgun in crime, but they will use a long gun, club, knife, tree branch, lug wrench, whatever they find convenient.

The dedicated criminal will just bring in an extra box when he boats in his cocaine. That box full of firearms.

I can not see how social programs would stop crime. I mean, no matter what people have, they always want more. Or, no matter their beliefs, there is someone with differing beliefs that they might like to hurt.

Drugs are illegal, but I can go out and get some right now. I know, "victim less crime". Does't matter, they are still very much illegal and very much accessible. Make handguns illegal and I am sure you would still be able to get them, illegally.

This isn't as simple and taking Johnny's Crayons away when you catch him coloring on the wall.

Personally, I don't see how a civilized person would want to take away others'' enjoyment. Many people find enjoyment in hunting, target shooting, and collecting firearms of all kinds.

Ted