Dreakon139

Do you/would you own a gun?

160 posts in this topic

I think it'd be fun to have and practice and shoot targets recreationally... but my mind can get erratic enough that it's probably not a good idea for me personally to have around.  As far as harming myself goes, not others lol.

Edited by Dreakon13
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SHORT ANSWER: Yes, I do and I'm not afraid to use it!

 

LONG ANSWER: I own a little Ruger .22 LR and will be getting an AR-15 or other sort of tactical rifle after I finish my concealed carry training course for the pistol. I'll also be taking a course on the rifle. My father was a law enforcement officer and a champion sharpshooter, achieving the rank of "Master" in the marksmanship tests (the second highest score). As for gun laws, I favor the addition of ONE thing. I believe that if a person has to get a background check to purchase a gun at a store like I did, they should also have to go through the same background check if they are purchasing a gun that is being sold to them by their personal friend. Other than that, "shall not be infringed" about covers it.

 

There is no such thing as an assault rifle. "Assault" is an action that must be taken by a human being. Therefore, no gun, in and of itself, is inherently more dangerous than another. Many people don't realize this, but an AR-15 is mechanically the exact same gun as a regular old Remington or Winchester wooden hunting rifle. It is semi-automatic, which means it fires one bullet with every pull of the trigger just like the rifles that are used by hunters out in the woods. An AR-15 also has the exact same velocity, ammunition, and capacity as a wooden hunting rifle. There are mod kits that can turn the guns into fully-automatic weapons or give them three-round burst fire, but these mods are already illegal in the United States. "AR" doesn't stand for "Assault Rifle." It stands for "Armalite" (the manufacturer) and the 15 stands for "Model 15." This is also true with other brands of rifles.

 

Both of these weapons are the SAME GUN. The only difference is that one has a black plastic stock and looks more menacing. Yet, one of Dianne Feinstein's gun control bills sought to outlaw the first while specifically exempting the second. Gun control efforts might make more sense if the people writing them had the first clue about firearms to begin with.

 

Neither 'Capacity' Nor 'Power' Distinguishes 'Assault Weapons' From Other  Firearms

 

The only people who can legally possess fully automatic weapons like M-16s or M4 Carbines are members of the US military and they are issued these weapons during deployment, turning them in when their tour is finished. Felons are not legally allowed to purchase or otherwise possess any type of firearm and if caught with them, are charged accordingly. People with legitimate mental illnesses that are characterized by a history of violence or a history of arrests are not legally allowed to purchase firearms, either. The dude that shot up Sandy Hook Elementary tried to purchase that rifle legally and was DENIED, so he stole one. That alone is proof that the US has adequate gun laws and that the criminals who carry out such acts are simply disobeying or ignoring those laws (hence the word "criminal"), making it pertinent that the general populace have their own way to protect themselves. In fact, that is precisely why these criminals target schools and other public gathering places to begin with. Schools, movie theaters, and other such places have giant signs that say "GUN FREE ZONE," or in other words, "HERE WE ARE! WE ARE OBEYING THE LAW TO NOT HAVE ANY GUNS IN THIS LOCATION, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO PROTECT OURSELVES! IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO BECOME A MASS-MURDERER, THIS WOULD BE A LOGICAL PLACE TO DO SO!"

 

Maybe instead of 'GUN FREE ZONE' signs, we should arm and train innocent, law abiding citizens and put up signs at public places that say "ABSOLUTELY NO HOMICIDAL MANIACS BEYOND THIS POINT. VIOLATORS WILL BE SHOT." That is all.

Edited by Kristen Danielle
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kristen Danielle said:

Neither 'Capacity' Nor 'Power' Distinguishes 'Assault Weapons' From Other  Firearms

The guy she tells you not to worry about vs you :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One little chambered with 7.62 or equal bolt action baby will do for me. In hopes to get one, to reach my goals in kilometers away:). Really love this stuff.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately due to the psychos and school shootings we have had over the past decade, it is now more difficult to have or own a firearm.

 

I have no intention of having a firearm.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah.   I carried an M4 and an M9 for 4 years overseas, so I kinda got over my gun fetish when I was like 22.   

Edited by SecularIX
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm not American I don't have any use for it other than ending my own life. I like videogame guns though.

 

This thread was quite an interesting read BTW. A time window into 2011-2013.

 

Edited by Slava
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Denmark and its illegal to own firearms, unless its for hunting (hunting rifles).

 

if it was legal, and it was also legal to protect your family and property, with deadly Force, i would do that. 
 

It seems stupid that you can’t legally protect you and your family that Way, but thats The law here 😊

21 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

Unfortunately due to the psychos and school shootings we have had over the past decade, it is now more difficult to have or own a firearm.

 

I have no intention of having a firearm.


wich is an idiotic Logic. I hate that Logic. 
 

we dont remove cars, because many people die in trafic every day. 
 

we dont remove cooking knives, though some people kill with knives.

 

we dont remove axes, though people kill with those too.

 

its not The took, its The person that kills. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TomataEighty9 said:

wich is an idiotic Logic. I hate that Logic. 
 

we dont remove cars, because many people die in trafic every day. 
 

we dont remove cooking knives, though some people kill with knives.

 

we dont remove axes, though people kill with those too.

 

its not The took, its The person that kills. 


This is complete tripe and utter bullshit. 
 

Gun laws in my country vary, depending on what state you live in. I know California has confusing gun laws. 
 

Having a gun in my eyes is perfectly fine if you happen to enjoy something like hunting, or you have a pistol for protection. Someone breaks into your house that poses a threat, you have the right to shoot that person because they are putting you in danger.

 

A certain person who killed dozens of student at Virginia Tech back in 2007 sparked a heated debate over gun control. The more glaring problem was the young man had mental issues. I choose not to have a gun, but I have known many people in my lifetime who were responsible gun owners. 
 

You come on to say I have idiotic logic, whereas I find your points completely vague. 
 

You should have said not all people should have a gun, just like not all people deserve to have a drivers license and drive behind the wheel. 
 

I suggest you construct your points better.  Just saying we don’t remove cars or we don’t remove knives while telling me you hate the logic I posted isn’t going to convince anybody.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's stupid trying to ban guns when they are/were already in circulation. The trick is to never have them readily available in the first place. You can't easily put a genie back in the bottle.

 

An issue of course is the mental state of the user holding the gun. In London for example guns are illegal but instead we just have stabbing sprees instead of shooting sprees, even if you banned guns and knives, well people would still find a way to get one.

 

I have no plans to own a gun, not that I ever will be living in a country that allows me. I'd rather shoot people in a game, like I am sure everyone else here prefers to do.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:


This is complete tripe and utter bullshit. 
 

Gun laws in my country vary, depending on what state you live in. I know California has confusing gun laws. 
 

Having a gun in my eyes is perfectly fine if you happen to enjoy something like hunting, or you have a pistol for protection. Someone breaks into your house that poses a threat, you have the right to shoot that person because they are putting you in danger.

 

A certain person who killed dozens of student at Virginia Tech back in 2007 sparked a heated debate over gun control. The more glaring problem was the young man had mental issues. I choose not to have a gun, but I have known many people in my lifetime who were responsible gun owners. 
 

You come on to say I have idiotic logic, whereas I find your points completely vague. 
 

You should have said not all people should have a gun, just like not all people deserve to have a drivers license and drive behind the wheel. 
 

I suggest you construct your points better.  Just saying we don’t remove cars or we don’t remove knives while telling me you hate the logic I posted isn’t going to convince anybody.

 

You couldn't misunderstand me more, even if you tried mate. 

 

I said THE LOGIC, behind the debate on REMOVING guns, BECAUSE of school shootings, is retarded........ 

 

Mate please... Read what i write, before jumping to conclusions.... Maybe you should stop taking every post on here as an attack on you, and actually READ them properly before replying...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, enaysoft said:

I think it's stupid trying to ban guns when they are/were already in circulation. The trick is to never have them readily available in the first place. You can't easily put a genie back in the bottle.

 

An issue of course is the mental state of the user holding the gun. In London for example guns are illegal but instead we just have stabbing sprees instead of shooting sprees, even if you banned guns and knives, well people would still find a way to get one.

 

I have no plans to own a gun, not that I ever will be living in a country that allows me. I'd rather shoot people in a game, like I am sure everyone else here prefers to do.

 

We had a lot of shootings in America over the past decade, and the first thing the media always brought up was gun control. Which was stupid. Mental health was barely discussed while the media was questioning 'how can we limit firearms'.

 

That doesn't solve the problem, instead that just fucks everybody over, including responsible, careful gun owners who never broke any laws. I much prefer people to not have guns at all, but our culture has had a long history with guns. That isn't something that one can just wash away in the rain.

 

29 minutes ago, TomataEighty9 said:

 

You couldn't misunderstand me more, even if you tried mate. 

 

I said THE LOGIC, behind the debate on REMOVING guns, BECAUSE of school shootings, is retarded........ 

 

Mate please... Read what i write, before jumping to conclusions.... Maybe you should stop taking every post on here as an attack on you, and actually READ them properly before replying...

 

You didn't explain anything. You just made some vague statements about removing stuff. Okay.... what is your point?

 

There's no debate here, you just came out and said you don't like the logic I presented. And if you bothered reading some of my other posts instead of jumping on me whenever I make a rant, then you would know I'm not actually taking others posts as an attack. Far from it.

 

We're obviously not speaking the same language, so I'm done with this thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in South Carolina means I own guns, but I'm not really sure why. I don't even have ammo for most of them.

 

On 5/18/2013 at 1:58 AM, Parker said:

officers are sworn to protect and serve [...] we're going to do anything in our power to protect ourselves and the innocent people from who we perceive as a threat. If you aren't a threat then there is absolutely no reason to be worried

 

This didn't age well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

We had a lot of shootings in America over the past decade, and the first thing the media always brought up was gun control. Which was stupid. Mental health was barely discussed while the media was questioning 'how can we limit firearms'.

 

The US has only around double the percentage of diagnosis of mental health problems than here in the UK (23% of population, vs. 11% in the UK), and less than double the percentage of the population who self-report ongoing feelings of mental distress (26% of population vs 17% of population)…

 

…in the decade between 2009 and 2018, the US had 288 school shootings. The UK had Zero. 
 

Do you really think the difference is that Americans are somehow more homicidal by nature… or do you think it might be because in the UK, we have strict gun control laws? 

Edited by DrBloodmoney
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DrBloodmoney said:

Do you really think the difference is that Americans are somehow more homicidal by nature… or do you think it might be because in the UK, we have strict gun control laws? 

 

I personally don't think it's because of strict gun control laws.  If you actually go look at the whole world and compare their gun control laws and the rates of gun related homicides, the correlation dries up fast.

 

Here's some stats on gun related deaths in 2019: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

 

Brazil actually has far more than the US, and they have stricter controls than the US does.  If you actually adjust for population and look into how many per 100k people, the US doesn't even rank in the top 10 in the world and some countries with far stricter gun control laws rank higher.

 

Here's a breakdown of gun control laws in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

 

Probably the most notable exception to the whole thought of "strict gun control laws lower the number of gun related deaths" is Venezuela.  They forbid carrying in public and forbid citizens from owning guns.  Yet they rank at number 2 for the most violent gun deaths per 100k people despite the fact that few people can legally own a gun.  If strict gun control laws worked, then Venezuela would have a much lower rate of death from violent gun crimes.

 

Then on the flip side, Singapore actually has the lowest rate of violent gun related deaths in the world, but their laws aren't extremely strict.  Stricter than the US, but they do permit citizens to carry guns for some reasons.  If less strict gun controls resulted in more violent gun deaths, then Singapore wouldn't have the lowest rate in the world because their laws are less strict than many other countries.

 

If gun control laws worked, you'd see a direct correlation between the strictness of the laws and the number of deaths from guns across the board.  That correlation doesn't exist when you actually look at the whole world.  People who think they work are only looking at developed countries who already had low rates of crime before they implemented strict gun control laws.  Overall crime rate seems to be a far closer correlation than the strictness of gun control laws.  Considering that the US has the highest rates of crime among developed countries, it's very unlikely that following the example of countries like the UK will work as well.  What the US needs to focus on is lowering our overall crime rates rather than focusing only on a specific subset of crimes and ignoring that many die from crimes that don't involve guns too.  That's not an easy task, but it is very likely the best way to proceed.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ladynadiad said:

 

I personally don't think it's because of strict gun control laws.  If you actually go look at the whole world and compare their gun control laws and the rates of gun related homicides, the correlation dries up fast.

 

Here's some stats on gun related deaths in 2019: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country

 

Brazil actually has far more than the US, and they have stricter controls than the US does.  If you actually adjust for population and look into how many per 100k people, the US doesn't even rank in the top 10 in the world and some countries with far stricter gun control laws rank higher.

 

Here's a breakdown of gun control laws in many countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation

 

Probably the most notable exception to the whole thought of "strict gun control laws lower the number of gun related deaths" is Venezuela.  They forbid carrying in public and forbid citizens from owning guns.  Yet they rank at number 2 for the most violent gun deaths per 100k people despite the fact that few people can legally own a gun.  If strict gun control laws worked, then Venezuela would have a much lower rate of death from violent gun crimes.

 

Then on the flip side, Singapore actually has the lowest rate of violent gun related deaths in the world, but their laws aren't extremely strict.  Stricter than the US, but they do permit citizens to carry guns for some reasons.  If less strict gun controls resulted in more violent gun deaths, then Singapore wouldn't have the lowest rate in the world because their laws are less strict than many other countries.

 

If gun control laws worked, you'd see a direct correlation between the strictness of the laws and the number of deaths from guns across the board.  That correlation doesn't exist when you actually look at the whole world.  People who think they work are only looking at developed countries who already had low rates of crime before they implemented strict gun control laws.  Overall crime rate seems to be a far closer correlation than the strictness of gun control laws.  Considering that the US has the highest rates of crime among developed countries, it's very unlikely that following the example of countries like the UK will work as well.  What the US needs to focus on is lowering our overall crime rates rather than focusing only on a specific subset of crimes and ignoring that many die from crimes that don't involve guns too.  That's not an easy task, but it is very likely the best way to proceed.

 

Not invalid points, and I don't discount them, but what I think you are overlooking there, is that the countries you are citing that have high instances of gun violence, despite a strict gun control laws, have far lower rates of effective law enforcement across the board.

 

I think, given that the UK and the US have a much closer connection in terms of both cultural standards, levels of education, mental health issues, relationship to law enforcement, rule of law etc. it is silly to completely ignore the overwhelming evidence that the one major difference in this regard - tight gun restrictions - has on gun violence and gun deaths.

 

For sure, there have been instances over here of knife crime in schools, for example, but it's not quite the same. The motives, cultural influences and and the mental health issues that lead to it are the same, but the level of carnage that can be wrought in a short amount of time is vastly lower.

 

Edited by DrBloodmoney
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

There's no debate here, you just came out and said you don't like the logic I presented

 

Aaaaand you do it again. 

 

You clearly STILL dont read my posts. You INSIST on being a victim. Jesus.... You can jump to any conclusion you want, im not gonna keep trying, when you're clearly not reading my posts.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DrBloodmoney  As usual, I can depend on you to be a voice of reason. While I certainly won't pretend to know the solution for a country which has more firearms than people (around 393 million), I do know that it doesn't lie in the status quo, or in NRA talking points from the 1970s I've seen parroted in this thread. I also get rather tried of the blame being placed squarely on mental health; obviously it's an important issue, but last I did reading on this, only 3% to 5% of violent crimes are committed by those with serious mental illness, and about 1% of all gun-related homicides. People living with serious mental illness are far more likely to be victims of violent acts themselves—I believe 2.5 times more likely on the low end, with some research indicating it's much higher.

 

I just made myself sad.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in Germany, I have never owned a gun and I do not want to own a gun, hell I daresay I do not need a gun either. I was once interested in getting a hunting rifle and get my permit to hunt animals in our forests, but the cost, effort, responsibilities and the sheer bureaucracy behind being allowed to hunt game is quite frankly inhumane so I buried that idea. I am very well capable to physically defend myself against the vast majority of human beings walking the earth given that I used to partake in contact sports, had plenty of real encounters in my youth and I am just big and physically strong in general, I feel rather confident no matter where I go and unlike other people I know I was never mugged or randomly assaulted on the streets. This only goes for Germany though, as guns are quite rare here, so there is no need to have one to make up for the fact that many others have it, even the criminals here do not super commonly use them unless it is about something really serious, as punishments for any crime committed with the help of a gun are very severe even if no one gets hurt, hell even if the gun used was a toy gun.

 

With that being said, if I were to move to a country like the USA, I would get a gun before I even arrive there. There are so many more reasons to have a gun in that country, no matter who you are. You could be someone who expects to suffer from the attention of the often belligerent police officers so you need that gun to possibly save your life, you could live in a ghetto full of armed criminal scum so the gun is protection from your neighbours, you could be a shop owner in the age of socially accepted rioters/looters going after your possessions so you have to discover your inner rooftop korean to avoid financial ruin, you may even expect to be victim or witness of some terror attack or school shooting, or plenty of other reasons. The more guns are around the more sense it makes to have one too, even if it is just for deterrence, that much is hard to deny.

 

Banning guns entirely is stupid, and quite frankly impossible in a country that has so many of them already, as the deterrence of the guns also works against the state itself, intentionally or unintentionally. However, in a country like the USA guns should be harder to get than they often are in practice, especially if they are so easy to get that even insane teenagers are almost regularly getting their hands on them to shoot up their schools. Not that this never happened in European countries mind you, but I'd say it is quite a rare event in comparison.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes own guns.  No, have no problem with guns or those who own them.  Only way I could support banning would be if they were banned for everyone: police, military, private security, etc.  Which will never happen.  Politicians and corporate execs who speak about stricter gun control should start with their own armed security escorts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/19/2021 at 3:03 AM, Helyx said:

Living in South Carolina means I own guns, but I'm not really sure why. I don't even have ammo for most of them.

 

 

This didn't age well.

 

I don't see why not, the odds of getting shot by Law Enforcement are extremely small, even smaller if you're not a perceived threat. Last I checked there are over 1 million sworn LEOs in the United States, if only 20% of that 1 million make 1 traffic stop a day, for 365 days, well, that is a lot of interaction between the public, yes? 

 

Now of course I'm not claiming that Police don't make mistakes, but the news would have you believe the Police are just mowing down everyone they come across when that is so far from the truth it isn't even laughable. 

 

Honestly, I'm not really interested in talking about it online anymore. I've lived it for 16 hours a day, 5 days a week for over 9 years now and after the past few years, I'm done discussing Law Enforcement on forums. Obviously, you're more than welcome to send me a PM if you actually want to have a discussion, but I'm not going to debate a bunch of people online, don't have time for that anymore. 

 

 

Parker

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American Dream VR game, detailed that many people get accidentally killed by guns, and normally at least one a year is killed by their dog, so yeah... I don't like guns, they cause death and that is literally their only purpose. And when they do what they're made for, it's a tragedy... so I literally see no purpose to keeping them.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.