Do you own a firearm?


  

273 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you own a firearm?

    • Yes
      63
    • Yes, and I use it frequently
      32
    • I dont like guns
      111
    • I dont care stfu
      67


Recommended Posts

I do not understand the USA's obsession with guns. Approximately 1/6th of all American citizen's own a firearm. In 1996, approximately 14,000 American citizen's died in homicide's with a firearm being the murder weapon. In Australia, where there is strict gun control, there were 290 firearm related deaths in 2003. Of the 290, only 54 were homicide.

In 1996, 20 in every 370,400 died from homicide involving guns in the USA. In 2003, 1 in every 370,400 Australian's died from homicide involving guns. The USA has a significantly higher death rate from homicide involing firearms then any other 1st-world nation. If the general population can't link this fact with the widespread gun ownership, then that's just crazy.

This obviously all relates to the Bill of Rights. Those who originally suggested the Bill of Rights was a bad idea were correct, although not for the reasons they suspected. Those originally opposed to the Bill of Rights thought that the document might be interpretted as the only rights extended to citizen's. In fact, the problem is that any rights extended to citizen's in 1789 aren't neccessarily relevant today, or relevant 100 years from now. It is amazing that the Bill of Rights has held up as well as it has, but it has issues.

For example, the second ammendant, obviously a focal point of this discussion, extends a right to citizen's that is bassed upon the world of 1789. At that time, it was important for local communities to be able to defend themselves. That is no longer the role of the citizen, but that of the law enforcement agencies. Citizen's are welcome to take as many preventitive measures as they like, but to kill someone is illegal and as such it is difficult argue that owning a gun to protect yourself is reasonable.

The other ammendment that has caused problems, is the fifth. It was not concieved by the founding fathers that in the future, it would be possible for new evidence to be uncovered that would have significant impact on previously ruled upon cases. Double jeaporady has prevented arguably guilty people from facing re-trial after new evidence is uncovered.

Edited by kl33per
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A... Lots of people own guns in canada wh are not criminals or cops.  How the hell do you think people go hunting??

586756623[/snapback]

I was specifically referring to the City of Toronto. Rural people owning rifles does not bother me. I don't think that guns have a place in a major urban centre unless they are used by law enforcement.

If I were to own a gun for my own personal protection then that would be the same as admitting that the local police cannot or will not protect me and I think that is a sad indication of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the military and the police use guns to protect people. People who own guns themselves use it to protect themselves.

I come from the UK, where guns (apart from shotguns) are illegal, therefore the majority of owners are irresponsible. We don't enjoy blowing everything up like Americans.

What's the point in owning a gun if your not going to use it?

586754117[/snapback]

Fist off, the majority of legal gun owners in the states are responsible. The stats show that and it is clear and plain. Cops are not as responsible as everyone makes them out to be, (FBI stats show it takes 8.7 shots by a COP to take down a criminal, 2.1 by a Concealed and Carry/legal owner), and injuries by guns on Cops is 35% of all gun injuries, (i have several Friends whom are Cops, and one of them is in Internal Affairs dept, and they are investigating 2-3 a month).

Guns are no different then hammers, when used and handled correctly there is little chance of injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the USA's obsession with guns.  Approximately 1/6th of all American citizen's own a firearm.  In 1996, approximately 14,000 American citizen's died in homicide's with a firearm being the murder weapon.  In Australia, where there is strict gun control, there were 290 firearm related deaths in 2003.  Of the 290, only 54 were homicide.

In 1996, 20 in every 370,400 died from homicide involving guns in the USA.  In 2003, 1 in every 370,400 Australian's died from homicide involving guns.  The USA has a significantly higher death rate from homicide involing firearms then any other 1st-world nation.  If the general population can't link this fact with the widespread gun ownership, then that's just crazy.

This obviously all relates to the Bill of Rights.  Those who originally suggested the Bill of Rights was a bad idea were correct, although not for the reasons they suspected.  Those originally opposed to the Bill of Rights thought that the document might be interpretted as the only rights extended to citizen's.  In fact, the problem is that any rights extended to citizen's in 1789 aren't neccessarily relevant today, or relevant 100 years from now.  It is amazing that the Bill of Rights has held up as well as it has, but it has issues.

For example, the second ammendant, obviously a focal point of this discussion, extends a right to citizen's that is bassed upon the world of 1789.  At that time, it was important for local communities to be able to defend themselves.  That is no longer the role of the citizen, but that of the law enforcement agencies.  Citizen's are welcome to take as many preventitive measures as they like, but to kill someone is illegal and as such it is difficult argue that owning a gun to protect yourself is reasonable.

The other ammendment that has caused problems, is the fifth.  It was not concieved by the founding fathers that in the future, it would be possible for new evidence to be uncovered that would have significant impact on previously ruled upon cases.  Double jeaporady has prevented arguably guilty people from facing re-trial after new evidence is uncovered.

586756752[/snapback]

Yeah, AND? Some of the laws are messed and change is needed, but not ot the Second Amendment. You can not compare Australia's homicide rate to that of the U.S., because there are significant differences in attitude, morals, values, ethics, etc... . Also you also forgot to mention that the U.S. has a big drug problem as well. And as we all know drugs are illegal, but yet they are still acquired by those that really want them. So the same principle applies, that if you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns, and not the common law abiding citizen that needs them from protection from the outlaw criminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the USA's obsession with guns. Approximately 1/6th of all American citizen's own a firearm. In 1996, approximately 14,000 American citizen's died in homicide's with a firearm being the murder weapon. In Australia, where there is strict gun control, there were 290 firearm related deaths in 2003. Of the 290, only 54 were homicide.

In 1996, 20 in every 370,400 died from homicide involving guns in the USA. In 2003, 1 in every 370,400 Australian's died from homicide involving guns. The USA has a significantly higher death rate from homicide involing firearms then any other 1st-world nation. If the general population can't link this fact with the widespread gun ownership, then that's just crazy.

This obviously all relates to the Bill of Rights. Those who originally suggested the Bill of Rights was a bad idea were correct, although not for the reasons they suspected. Those originally opposed to the Bill of Rights thought that the document might be interpretted as the only rights extended to citizen's. In fact, the problem is that any rights extended to citizen's in 1789 aren't neccessarily relevant today, or relevant 100 years from now. It is amazing that the Bill of Rights has held up as well as it has, but it has issues.

For example, the second ammendant, obviously a focal point of this discussion, extends a right to citizen's that is bassed upon the world of 1789. At that time, it was important for local communities to be able to defend themselves. That is no longer the role of the citizen, but that of the law enforcement agencies. Citizen's are welcome to take as many preventitive measures as they like, but to kill someone is illegal and as such it is difficult argue that owning a gun to protect yourself is reasonable.

The other ammendment that has caused problems, is the fifth. It was not concieved by the founding fathers that in the future, it would be possible for new evidence to be uncovered that would have significant impact on previously ruled upon cases. Double jeaporady has prevented arguably guilty people from facing re-trial after new evidence is uncovered.

That and also the population difference is huge! Thus, more people = more crime

Australia = ~20.1 Milliion

US = ~ 295.8 Million

Thats about a difference of almost 15x.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the USA's obsession with guns.  Approximately 1/6th of all American citizen's own a firearm.  In 1996, approximately 14,000 American citizen's died in homicide's with a firearm being the murder weapon.  In Australia, where there is strict gun control, there were 290 firearm related deaths in 2003.  Of the 290, only 54 were homicide.

In 1996, 20 in every 370,400 died from homicide involving guns in the USA.  In 2003, 1 in every 370,400 Australian's died from homicide involving guns.  The USA has a significantly higher death rate from homicide involing firearms then any other 1st-world nation.  If the general population can't link this fact with the widespread gun ownership, then that's just crazy.

586756752[/snapback]

Over 102,000 children died because of medical mistakes by there doctors, yet no one wants to ban doctors. There are issues with ownership, but when you look at the real numbers, (not the 'child is someone with living parents', so 35 & 50 years count as children), the number of injuries and deaths by legal gun owners is low.

This issue in the states is the lack of enforcement of gun laws, and lack of training and understanding. in high school, i had to have 10 hours of Sex ed training on 'safe sex' to graduate, but nothing about safety and firearms. 3 hours were spent on condoms, and there proper use. To bad they didn't tell me that the failure rate was as high as 20% and related safety issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over 102,000 children died because of medical mistakes by there doctors, yet no one wants to ban doctors.

586758551[/snapback]

Doctors? That indicates people with intelligence. Gun owners? That does not.

Therefore, Doctors are more worthy human beings than gun owners. Doctors do not have malicious intent, in fact, it is all good motives. What good intentions do gun owners possess? Please do not try to similize two un-relatable things.

I do agree with your next comment though; The government should make it mandatory for schools to teach proper weapon etiquette.

I don't own a gun and I'm in no hurry to purchase one. If I had a forest/some woods near my house (the one in USA, as guns are prohibited in UK) , I wouldn't mind owning a gun. Then I could shoot all the hunte.. no, wait. I'd kill squirrels - damn buggers! Always afraid of me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What good intentions do gun owners possess?

586758598[/snapback]

WOW? There intent is to defend one's self, family, domicile, and general property. What "malicious" intent is there in that.

What is the point of anyone having a military? TO DEFEND. Since no one can speak for every individuals intentions, except history and statistics, we can safely you those statistics and history that man in general is greedy and violent. We have no natural predators except ourselves. Therefore we must be able to protect ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to own a gun for my own personal protection then that would be the same as admitting that the local police cannot or will not protect me and I think that is a sad indication of society.

586758275[/snapback]

Quoted for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of anyone having a military? TO DEFEND.

586758646[/snapback]

Huh I kinda through it was to lower oil prices and enforce policy freindly to the countrys leaders. :ninja:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were to own a gun for my own personal protection then that would be the same as admitting that the local police cannot or will not protect me and I think that is a sad indication of society.

586758275[/snapback]

Thats exactly what I am saying, I will certainly admitt it. The police Can Not protect everyone at once. By the time they would respond it would be to late an arrive at the scene (house), well lets just keep it simple and say sorry its to late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guns kill people  :no:

586756562[/snapback]

The gun dosn't the bullet inside and the person the pulls the trigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh, more people taken in by anti-gun propaganda.

First off only 7% of violent crimes are committed with firearms.

Firearms are used for self defence purposes at least 800,000 times a year(lowest estimate, it goes into the millions depending on who you ask).

Pretending that making guns illegal will somehow prevent someone who is already intending on breaking a law by commiting murder, rape, etc from also illegally obtaining a gun is rediculous.

Saying that a legal gun owner has nothing but violent intent is pure prejudice and frankly wrong since most gun crimes are done by illegally obtained firearms. Further to claim that everyone owning a gun are not intelligent just makes you look stupid yourself.

The reason we have so much violence is because society is falling apart, had we had a samurai culture that went insane then you'd have more sword deaths. What I'm saying is that it's not the amount of deaths by a certain weapon we should be afraid of it's the amount of deaths themselves. It's absurd to look at murders commited by a firearm and instead of addressing the problem of murder itself to focus on the weapon used.\ yet that's just what the anti-gun crew is trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats exactly what I am saying, I will certainly admitt it. The police Can Not protect everyone at once. By the time they would respond it would be to late an arrive at the scene (house), well lets just keep it simple and say sorry its to late.

586760206[/snapback]

I say that fixing society's ills is a more rational approach than arming the populace.

I'm quite happy with a city wide average emgency response rate of 4.5 minutes and a murder rate one tenth of US cities. I don't doubt that a part of that comes from less guns in poeple's homes thus resulting in less guns on the street.

Perhaps only 7% of violent crimes involves a firearm (accecpting someone's statistics for a moment). I'm sure that if you track deaths resulting from violent crimes that it would be more than 7% from firearms. The old saying of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be true but guns do allow people to kill people faster and more efficiently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say that fixing society's ills is a more rational approach than arming the populace.

I'm quite happy with a city wide average emgency response rate of 4.5 minutes and a murder rate one tenth of US cities.  I don't doubt that a part of that comes from less guns in poeple's homes thus resulting in less guns on the street.

Perhaps only 7% of violent crimes involves a firearm (accecpting someone's statistics for a moment).  I'm sure that if you track deaths resulting from violent crimes that it would be more than 7% from firearms. The old saying of "guns don't kill people, people kill people" may be true but guns do allow people to kill people faster and more efficiently.

586762982[/snapback]

Gun's have their good sides, and guns have their bad sides. Obviously guns can be used in the aid to kill people 'fast and more efficently' as you said. But guns for the civilian have good purposes as well. Many people like to go target shooting. Personally, I try to go every weekend. Gun's are powerful and dangerous devices, but that's not to say that they can't be used in controlled situations for sporting events.

Some people like to collect exotic guns, or choose those exotic military guns for specific reasons. I own several military 'like' weapons and I have because I like to collect them, and becuase they are reliable weapons. The reliablility goes beyond just being ready to fire in order to protect myself and my family. I choose reliable weapons because when I go down to the range, I expect to have a safe and trouble free time.

The Ak47 which get's it's bad name from the movies and from the media is a very reliable weapon. I have never EVER had a firing issue with my AK. The ammunition for my Ak is also rather common and so I can cheaply pick up ammo for it. Contrary to what the media may say, Ak's can fire in single shot modes and are quite accurate at the 100yard range I fire on. My Ar15 is also a semi automatic weapon and quite reliable. It has never missfired and operated at 100% since I purchased it a year or so ago. These weapons are great for people who like to go shooting on the weekends and not worry about the malfunctioning of the weapon.

I get the sence that a lot of the people in this thread that come out bashing guns as hate and death devices have never touched or shot a gun in real life and have only seen guns as they are portrayed on TV. Some people may have shot guns and may still feel uncomfortable being around them and still choose not to shoot them. I personally, and some of the other members in this thread are comfortable with guns and do enjoy using them. I'm not trying to push people into going shooting because that may just not be their 'cup of tea'. I am not interested in serveral trends that are out today, and I don't hate people who are into those 'hobbies'. The thing is, some of us actually do like guns and we do like shooting them. If it's not your 'cup of tea' then that's fine. But please don't judge everyone who owns a gun or enjoys shooting their guns for fun just because firearms can be used illegally.

In an extreme comparison, cars can be used illegal to kill someone, but we don't ban all cars becuase of the possibilities of someone else's actions. It's true that cars serve a higher purpose and were not made to kill people, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they can. Most guns, and especially military guns, were designed to kill efficently and that can't be excused, but the fact is that there are other uses for guns that people do enjoy taking part in.

I quoted someone before me when I started this reply but im not aiming this entirely at you. So, to continue this thread and maybe turn it into a more happy thread, how about each person who owns a gun and is proud of that gun, post pictures. We already have enough negativity in the thread, why not post pictures and discuss what the real guns lovers enjoy. The thread starter said he has guns, so why keep this thread aimed towards gun lovers. The poll seems to show that for the most part it's a 50/50 relationship of gun lovers to gun 'haters' on Neowin with the scale tipping in favor for the gun 'haters'. That being established, let's move on in a more positive note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

The thread starter said he has guns, so why keep this thread aimed towards gun lovers.  The poll seems to show that for the most part it's a 50/50 relationship of gun lovers to gun 'haters' on Neowin with the scale tipping in favor for the gun 'haters'.  That being established, let's move on in a more positive note.

586764103[/snapback]

I accept that.

It is just one aspect of US culture that I do not understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own guns because I have a family, and because I love my family. I dont want to be caught with my pants down if some idiot wants to come into my house with a knife and try to possibly harm a member of my family. In Colorado we have the Make my Day law, it entitles me to shoot anyone entering my domicile, armed or not. I will refuse to give up that right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owning guns is fine, my father and grandfather have guns, rifles, for hunting and keeping coyotes away from the horses. I don't have any problem with that.

Its the whackjobs who own AK47s that scare me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.