Guns - When Politics Encroach On Your Right To Bear Arms

[LastVanguard]

Morning, all.

I'll admit that I mostly have a disinterest in the American political system as a whole, and I've never voted in my life. Simple reason being is that I've never really wanted any of the candidates in the political running to actually hold the office that they're striving for.

The only time when I start to take interest is when politicians try to pass laws to take away certain liberties that I greatly cherish, such as the right to smoke a cigar inside a cigar bar (which, believe it or not, was outlawed for nearly a year in my hometown until politicians repealed it).

Perhaps my most treasured items that have been most threatened in recent months are my guns, crossbows, and swords. While I doubt politicians will go as far as to outlaw sword ownership, guns and crossbows have been on the decision table for some time now here in the United States. This upcoming presidential election could be the turning point in whether or not it's illegal to own/operate most types of firearms for civilians.

What are your thoughts on this? Would a law against owning or using firearms stop you from doing so? How possible do you think the idea of firearms being more restricted in America is in the next few years?

I wouldn't surrender my swords, and you'd have to fight me tooth and nail to surrender my guns. It doesn't make sense for a firearms restriction law to be passed, because there WOULD be a massive loss of life in trying to enforce it, particularly in the South. The resulting loss of life also wouldn't justify the loss of life that politicians are trying to prevent by stopping gun ownership/sales to potential criminals.

[CloverLeaf]

I see that you are a responsible gun owner. Good for you. But I would like to know about your opinion about an alternative solution to the gun violence in the US. Instead of outlawing the possession of firearms, what do you think would be a better solution to this pressing issue?

[LastVanguard]

I see that you are a responsible gun owner. Good for you. But I would like to know about your opinion about an alternative solution to the gun violence in the US. Instead of outlawing the possession of firearms, what do you think would be a better solution to this pressing issue?

Honestly, I don't think there is a better solution to the issue than the current state of affairs. Trying to change it at this point would make the consequences outweigh the benefits, since there's no easy way to make the situation better.

Gun restrictions don't have an effect on lawbreakers, since they'll simply resort to black market dealings to obtain weapons.

I'm open to ideas on how to improve the current situation of helping prevent mass shootings or acts of terrorism, but I don't believe that gun restrictions will help fix the problem.

That's my humble opinion, anyway.

[error345]

I agree with Vanguard. Cutting off the use of firearms by people who uses them as protection is a double edged sword. You're making them defenceless, dependent on police. Lawbreakers will always find a way to get guns even if it's harder. There should be surveys and analysis carried out before passing these kind of laws, but with politics its politics. The best kind of protection is when you are able to protect yourself.

[Kobowo]

I think this is something that depends on the culture of the country.

Japan (If im not mistaken) has virtually banned the use of firearms for civilians. It isn't entirely banned but you get the gist. Given that its an American norm to be given the right to own a firearm, I think banning ownership of firearms would just lead to something similar to SOPA or PIPA.

Finding ways to prevent firearm related incidents would still be the better route. I think creating a banlist for people who are irresponsible with firearms should be considered though (meaning you're given the benefit of the doubt to have firearms but if you demonstrate the inability to be responsible with handling such weapons then you should be blacklisted from owning guns from that point forward). Well thats my two-cents on the topic XD

[Rathma]

So let me ask something: Do you need a firearms license or something like that, or can you just go somewhere, buy it and use it to your liking?

[LastVanguard]

I think this is something that depends on the culture of the country.

Japan (If im not mistaken) has virtually banned the use of firearms for civilians. It isn't entirely banned but you get the gist. Given that its an American norm to be given the right to own a firearm, I think banning ownership of firearms would just lead to something similar to SOPA or PIPA

That's a good point. A lot of other countries in the world have already greatly restricted rights to own firearms. Japan's taken things a step further in preventing you from taking your beloved battle-ready sword out of your house in many cases.

It's more of a cultural thing for people in the United States. If honorifics were forcibly outlawed in Japanese culture (highly impossible, but hear me out for a minute), there would be a similar uprising that would take place there. Honorifics are so ingrained into their culture at this point that they can't surrender them, same as gun ownership is for many Americans.

So let me ask something: Do you need a firearms license or something like that, or can you just go somewhere, buy it and use it to your liking?

Depends on the type of gun here in America. Anyone over the age of 18 or 21 (it varies by state) can buy most low-caliber non-fully-automatic rifles without a license of any kind. I bought my first .22 rifle in Nebraska when I was 21; still have it today.

Handguns either require a license to own, or a concealed carry license to take outside of your house. Fully-automatic guns are either heavily restricted on who can buy them due to extensive background investigations for their licenses, or are outlawed altogether (again, it varies by state here in the U.S.)

[Rathma]

Yeah, here in germany you can own a weapon with a license for ownership and you can use them with a firearms license. I am shocked by the idea, that every psychotic, mentaly instabile or just outright stupid person could walk into a shop and buy a firearm without needing a license.

I don't know how to solve that problem, because even if you make it so you have to have a license to own or use firearms and everyone could get those with some tests (you know, standart stuff: You can actualy properly use them), not everyone that currently owns a firearm would be able to aquire a license (mostly because of stupidity). So there is still the problem about the stupid ones losing their weapons, everyone else could still happily own them.

[Augustus]

You do seem to fit into the libertarian category at least. ;P

I'm kind of detached from this debate, living in Sweden. Owning a gun is allowed, but it has to be locked up in a special safe approved by the police when kept at home. And if someone breaks into your house you're not allowed to use it in self defense.

I think people should be allowed to carry guns for safety, even when leaving the house. Currently Europe is experiencing an invasion from the third world which is making this continent less safe by the day.

As for America I do believe that the second amendment should be upheld. The U.S. Constitution is one of the foundations on which your country rests and also part of the "civil religion" and identity of the United States. Wasn't the right to bear arms even put in place so that the people can rise up against their government if it turns oppressive?

To answer one of your questions, no, a law wouldn't stop me from acquiring a firearm if I felt that I needed one. I have owned one before without a license.

[ZetsuRavez]

question.... are all the guns that was use in mass shooting or crimes(in US) are licensed?...
how difficult for a person to get license for a certain gun like handgun, shotgun, rifle, automatic gun, etc...
and how easy for people (in US) to get unlicensed gun?...

just want to ask first cuz i'm not from US and i need to know this first...

[CloverLeaf]

Good thing there's a strict gun control here in Canada. Today, a Grade 9 girl in a school in the city where I live chased students around and slashed them with steak knives. Eight people were injured. Just imagine how it could have turned out if the girl's parents owned a gun, and she took it to school. You can read more about the incident here: http://www.citynews.ca/2016/02/23/lo...g-high-school/

Outlawing guns would not be a viable solution anymore to this issue. Not because it would actually help you defend yourself against potential disasters, but because people won't give up their guns. They would even fight to death to keep it.

It's not a surprise that the nations with strict gun control laws have lower incidence rates of mass shootings. These mass shootings in the US wouldn't have happened in the first place if there were stricter regulations regarding gun ownership.

An excuse like:

"Outlawing guns won't solve this issue because bad guys will always find a way to obtain guns illegally. Therefore, I must also own guns to protect myself, just in case. And I will carry it around, even at Walmart and McDonald's."

just sounds silly.

If the US would allocate more funding for mental health services, I believe it would make a difference.


Meanwhile in Texas: http://9gag.com/gag/apvv7zD/meanwhile-in-texas

[SageSaku]

The funny thing is that the people who will actually give up their guns are the ones who actually obey gun laws in the first place.The government acts like banning firearms is just gonna instantly make them all disappear. But criminals aren't going to give them up at least not without a fight banning them is just going to affect the people who obey the law...
To tell the truth though I think everyone who buys a gun should get a background check and have some sort of Gun safety training as a compromise...
Also yes alot of americans are stupid.Many Diplomas here aren't worth the paper they are printed on so many people just slip through the educational system.

[martindude]

It takes a very long time and alot of money to get guns legally where I'm from. It would honestly be cheaper and faster to get illegal firearms here, but I do enjoy being able to take my registered firearms to a range and chill without getting thrown in prison.. However, we cannot legally use these firearms to defend ourselves, if I were to shoot an intruder in my own home, I would be arrested for murder, if the intruder survives - attempted murder.

[3RG0T15M]

I've been interested in shooting sports for years now and the one thing preventing me from it has been the expensive nature of it. That said, where I live, guns are not easy to come by unless you're willing to go to the darknet via tor, which I do not advise for that purpose due to dodging regulations and legislation related to firearms and ammunition. It would probably be a fun experience and all but as of now not financially viable as a hobby for me.

I believe everyone should have the right to concealed carry and have a gun, all the while I believe background checks and registration are sensible measures. I don't believe there exists any country where guns would be totally forbidden or confiscated in their entirety from the people anyway. It would be wholly impractical and impossible to enforce, with people of all political backgrounds carrying guns and using them to some degree.

A militia-style reserve force with universal arming of the people would be ideal and substantially different to the class- and race-based disparities in gun ownership in the United States, with some having ten to dozens of guns at their disposal while some having none, which I believe is totally unreasonable.

[Prudii]

how in the name of the creator i just found this thread now? outrageous! As for banning guns the idea of it here in the USA would be almost (keyword being Almost) impossible the military cannot intervene by law with civilian matter specially one like this. The National Guard would Must likely laugh or ignore such order since they have P.O.W. (privately owned weapons) the cops could perhaps try to enforce it or perhaps turn a blind eye to it like they did during the 30's for the prohibition era that leaves the federal government with a lot of restrictions when it comes to it. Now lets talk about facts:
America was founded for four reasons: Freedom, Alcohol, No Taxes (we kinda lost our way there and Washington must be rolling on his grave) And GUNS. there is no way they will or can remove all the POW in the country we are talking about a lot, LOTS of guns.
Black Friday of 2019 alone there were 200,000 guns SOLD according to the FBI and that was a trend until 2020 (yes weird year i know but on its defense there was a gun back order since march)
in 2018 Small Arms Survey said that globally there is around 857 Millions guns legally owned around the world. Of that 393 Millions about 46% of them are owned by private citizens in the US of A. Let those numbers sink in, if guns where the real problem in the United States we could see the real blood bath that could be spread but there isnt. Yes we have murderers and massacres but lets think with our heads and not our hearts, lets ease down the feelings and analyze it. if there was to be a banning of weapons who are the ones to surrender (read confiscated) their weapons? It will NOT be the Criminal it will not be the evildoer it will be the law abiding citizen the one that will be left to fend for themselves. It is the idea that every home might have a gun that prevent the wide spread terror on neighborhoods.

[N1RV45H]

how in the name of the creator i just found this thread now? outrageous! As for banning guns the idea of it here in the USA would be almost (keyword being Almost) impossible the military cannot intervene by law with civilian matter specially one like this. The National Guard would Must likely laugh or ignore such order since they have P.O.W. (privately owned weapons) the cops could perhaps try to enforce it or perhaps turn a blind eye to it like they did during the 30's for the prohibition era that leaves the federal government with a lot of restrictions when it comes to it. Now lets talk about facts:
America was founded for four reasons: Freedom, Alcohol, No Taxes (we kinda lost our way there and Washington must be rolling on his grave) And GUNS. there is no way they will or can remove all the POW in the country we are talking about a lot, LOTS of guns.
Black Friday of 2019 alone there were 200,000 guns SOLD according to the FBI and that was a trend until 2020 (yes weird year i know but on its defense there was a gun back order since march)
in 2018 Small Arms Survey said that globally there is around 857 Millions guns legally owned around the world. Of that 393 Millions about 46% of them are owned by private citizens in the US of A. Let those numbers sink in, if guns where the real problem in the United States we could see the real blood bath that could be spread but there isnt. Yes we have murderers and massacres but lets think with our heads and not our hearts, lets ease down the feelings and analyze it. if there was to be a banning of weapons who are the ones to surrender (read confiscated) their weapons? It will NOT be the Criminal it will not be the evildoer it will be the law abiding citizen the one that will be left to fend for themselves. It is the idea that every home might have a gun that prevent the wide spread terror on neighborhoods.

I couldn't have said it better myself although the taxation they fought against was taxation without representation. Today we have representation through being able to vote on all changes to taxes at the local and state level. On the federal level we have to go through our congressmen and women, which can be done through direct letters as well as petition; although Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico still suffer from taxation without representation today.)