Why do you support gun ownership?

Why do you support gun ownership?


  • Total voters
    137
You got it right, I never owned a gun. The goverment doesn't allow. That's why I'm not so eager against guns, as our goverment deprives me off one possible hobby.

That sucks, I guess I'd be a bit skeptical of guns if I'd never been brought up using them. Its sorta similar (in a way) to France and alcohol. They aren't notorioius people for getting drunk, largely because they've grown up familiar with alcohol, and they know how to handle themselves while drinking it and how to drink it safely. If Americans aren't familiar with guns, they tend to either develop contempt for them or a dangerous, almost obsessive curiosity towards them. But most people around here hunt or have parents that hunt, and so guns aren't really a big deal to us, as far as being deemed dangerous, because we know they are safe when operated with care.
 
Hunting of course sounds all right. But do you hunt in urban area? Correct me if I'm wrong, IMO citizens with guns only work in dangerous areas in the city where police are just pieces of crap and couldn't defend anyone. Guns in citizens' hands could reduce planned murder but increase emotional, passionate murder. I may be a bit paranoid about guns, since it can kill people easier than a Swiss Army knife.

US has a different gun culture which IMO has links with big gun manufacturers. No other country in the world has big armory producers who sells them to regular citizens except military and police.
 
plarq said:
US has a different gun culture which IMO has links with big gun manufacturers. No other country in the world has big armory producers who sells them to regular citizens except military and police.


Actually Heckler & Koch, Fabrique Nationale, Beretta, Zastava, SIG, IMBEL, Steyer, CZ, Russia, Daewoo (Korea), Isreal, Egypt's Maadi export weapons to the US with the intent of selling them to retailers and then to American citizens. Alot of rundown Eastern Block factories and arsenals stayed in business by selling the guns to Americans.

Even China's Norinco made money exporting arms to the US market until Bush put an end to it in 2003.

Almost ALL modern pistols in the US are European imports. Austrian Glocks being the most popular. The "made in USA" is pretty limited except in revolvers and M1911 clones.

Most of my guns are foreign imports except for my Ruger carbines. My Mosin Nagant M44 came from Poland. My M70AB2 came from Serbia just this past year and my Star BM 9mm was former property of the Spanish Civil Guard. Made by Madrid-based Star company obviously.

As anti-gun as the Europeans are, they sure know how to make and market them
 
plarq said:
Since some of gun holders don't respect the gun, I guess a more strict regulation of firearm is needed. In order to fend off intruders and other criminals, we should only allow faithful, skillful, and responsible citizens in perfect mental health to hold guns.

You'd exclude even some off-duty police from having guns, then? :(
 
tomsnowman123 said:
Since a green-anarchy won't happen overnight, and the government appears to be here to stay, I mine as well try to get them to help a little bit. I would rather restrict gun ownership then allow it, since guns kill people.

Guns also save people, though.
 
IglooDude said:
Guns also save people, though.
Depends on who holds the gun. It's obvious that not everyone with a gun could save people.

IglooDude said:
You'd exclude even some off-duty police from having guns, then?
Judging from average police Joe, I think they are good gun holders in a society where guns are legal. They could help.

@Bugfatty: it's clear buying guns from nations who are not so friendly towards US (Russia, China and so on) unpatriotic.:rolleyes:
 
plarq said:
Depends on who holds the gun. It's obvious that not everyone with a gun could save people.

True, but the constant "I would rather restrict gun ownership then allow it, since guns kill people" refrain seems to miss the point that guns can be a very useful and positive tool.

plarq said:
Judging from average police Joe, I think they are good gun holders in a society where guns are legal. They could help.

I agree, but they in general are nowhere near "faithful, skillful, and responsible citizens in perfect mental health".
 
plarq said:
@Bugfatty: it's clear buying guns from nations who are not so friendly towards US (Russia, China and so on) unpatriotic.:rolleyes:

Hardly. Russian and Eastern block made weapons are very popular here. Russian ammo is probably the best selling ammo in the US.

As for China, Norinco gave Iran missile parts so Bush banned their products.
 
All of the above, except the last one. I don't really understand a poll that doesn't add up to 100%, though.
 
I support the right for hunters and farmers to be allowed guns to do their "thing". But people living in citys or suburbs dont. Look at it this way, if the public and police dont have guns then the criminals dont have them. This may sound stupid but here in New Zealand the police never get shot at. Normal the shootings happenen when a guy sleeps with a farmers wife.

The criminals in Iraq have RPGs because the police (usarmy) have tanks, the criminals in America have uzis because the police have guns, the criminals in New Zealand have bats and knifes because the cops have battons. Some times a crim here will pick up a sawn of shot gun, then we send in the swat teams to take them out.
 
It depends on the country.

The US already has a very high level of gun ownership, and a ban would simply take guns away from law-abiding citizens. In countries with low levels of gun ownership, however, a ban is useful
 
Nobody said:
I support the right for hunters and farmers to be allowed guns to do their "thing". But people living in citys or suburbs dont. Look at it this way, if the public and police dont have guns then the criminals dont have them. This may sound stupid but here in New Zealand the police never get shot at. Normal the shootings happenen when a guy sleeps with a farmers wife.

The criminals in Iraq have RPGs because the police (usarmy) have tanks, the criminals in America have uzis because the police have guns, the criminals in New Zealand have bats and knifes because the cops have battons. Some times a crim here will pick up a sawn of shot gun, then we send in the swat teams to take them out.
As long as certain people have guns, then they can obviously be trusted not to take advantage of people because they can't fight back.

Criminals can use any weapon since the law does not matter to them, not because they can use weapons to even the odds.
 
As long as certain people have guns, then they can obviously be trusted not to take advantage of people because they can't fight back.

Criminals can use any weapon since the law does not matter to them, not because they can use weapons to even the odds.

Criminals dont want a murder rap, they would prefer to hit somoene with a cheap bat than a expensive bullet. And they know if they do use a weapon (shotgun at most normally here) then the Swat will be called to reply with overwhelming force, while if they hit somone they might be able to outrun a normal cop.
 
Hunting of course sounds all right. But do you hunt in urban area? Correct me if I'm wrong, IMO citizens with guns only work in dangerous areas in the city where police are just pieces of crap and couldn't defend anyone. Guns in citizens' hands could reduce planned murder but increase emotional, passionate murder. I may be a bit paranoid about guns, since it can kill people easier than a Swiss Army knife.

US has a different gun culture which IMO has links with big gun manufacturers. No other country in the world has big armory producers who sells them to regular citizens except military and police.

I don't hunt in urban areas, but people in the urban areas such as Annapolis, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. come over here to hunt. Citizens with guns live pretty much anywhere, because this isn't the 1920's anymore where everybody knows everyone else, and people respect other people's property and such. In this day in age, no neighborhood, town, city, or farm is safe from robbers/armed gunmen.

And as far as a gun being easier to use to kill people with, I would disagree considering that anti-gun people would see that ALL people are unarmed, and thus ANY weapon would have essentially an equal chance. But, this is not true when the factor of sound is taken into account. Guns are loud. I have to wear ear-muffs when I go shooting at the range because my guns are so friggin loud. When a gun is fired in the city, or even in a small rural town, people know what has just happened. However, a swiss army knife is silent, and easier to conceal and pass off as not being a weapon.

And I don't really believe that people owning guns increases passionate murder because these people are familiar with guns and have a set purpose for them. Those that use guns for "passionate murder" typically buy a gun relatively close in time to the murder, and don't have a history of owning a lot of guns, or any guns for that matter.
 
Blazer6 said:
As long as certain people have guns, then they can obviously be trusted not to take advantage of people because they can't fight back.

Criminals can use any weapon since the law does not matter to them, not because they can use weapons to even the odds.

No, legal guns are cheaper than illegal guns, unless a gun ban is not enforced. If there's evidence to show murder, robbery and rape have connection with poverty, then a ban could do some good.
 
Atropos said:
It depends on the country.

The US already has a very high level of gun ownership, and a ban would simply take guns away from law-abiding citizens. In countries with low levels of gun ownership, however, a ban is useful

Good point. Historical factor is overwhelming. But it still worries me a bit.
 
I don't support it.

Guns take lives.

And I cannot and will not take lives
 
plarq said:
No, legal guns are cheaper than illegal guns, unless a gun ban is not enforced. If there's evidence to show murder, robbery and rape have connection with poverty, then a ban could do some good.
I did not say anything involving money.


Nobody said:
Criminals dont want a murder rap, they would prefer to hit somoene with a bat than a bullet. And they know if they do use a weapon (shotgun at most normally here) then the Swat will be called to reply with overwhelming force, while if they hit somone they might be able to outrun a normal cop.
Murder does not have to matter to the criminal who have greater power over the unarmed, just a display of power is enough to control the people.
I fixed your quote a bit to make more sense.


Paalikles said:
I don't support it.

Guns take lives.

And I cannot and will not take lives
No one really wants to take any lives away but people have the choice of not owning a gun, and just let other people do as they please as long as you don't wish to involve yourself with other peoples choices.
 
Not everyone are fit to owning a gun.

The fact that almost anyone can get a gun in your country, and no psychological testing is required, is quite unsatisfactory IMO
 
Back
Top Bottom