Is owning Guns good or bad?

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Jonny inspired this thread with his becoming a man thread... and I happened to have purchased another gun yesterday (I have many).

QUESTIONS: (pick any or all)

Do you think owning guns is good or bad. (generally).

Would you personally ever own a gun? why?

Is an armed populace good or bad? Does it protect against despotism?

I own guns, and if my income was higher I would own more of them. I used to shoot competitively, and enjoyed it very much. Also, and armed populace makes the politicians nervous, and that's a good enough reason in itself.

I keep a Springfield Armory National Match Model 1911 near my bed, and a .357 snubby in the console of my car. I really cannot imagine going, or staying anywhere for an extended period of time and not be armed. I realize the small statistical chance of being the victim of a violent crime, but I also realize the small statistical chance of me dying this year at the age of 32, and I still carry life insurance.

Armed citizens, or at least the possibility of them being armed has to make some criminal types think twice, and even if it doesn't, I at least want the option of fighting back.

B.

 

[PureX]

Jonny inspired this thread with his becoming a man thread... and I happened to have purchased another gun yesterday (I have many).

QUESTIONS: (pick any or all)

Do you think owning guns is good or bad. (generally).

Generally, I think it's a bad idea. Most of us will never in our entire lives have an occasion to need a firearm. Those among us who think that they will need one are already somewhat paranoid and unstable, and are exactly the kind of people who shouldn't own one. But they buy them, anyway, and because they are paranoid and unstable, very often the gun they buy ends up being misused, and someone gets killed.

As far as using guns for home protection, nine times out of ten the household will be robbed when no one is home, and the gun will be stolen and end up in the hands of criminals. And on the rare occasion when a criminal invades a home knowing that someone is there, they will come armed, in which case it will be doubtful that the homeowner's weapon will do him much good.

These are some of the reasons why I don't own any guns.

Would you personally ever own a gun? why?

I would own one if I felt there were a legitimate need for one. Right now I do not.

Is an armed populace good or bad?

Mostly, it's bad. The more guns that are out there, the more people will feel the need to have them, and so they will increase in number. And as they increase in number, so will the incidents of gun violence, which then in turn causes even more people to feel they need them. The bottom line is that the availability of guns increases the likelihood of gun violence over all, rather than decreasing it.

Does it protect against despotism?

No. The despots will have well armed and trained forces at their command, and more importantly still, they will have the backing of the majority of your fellow citizens. The only despots that americans need to fear are the ones they elect, themselves. And by then it'll be far too late to fight.

 

[Radio Frequency X]

QUESTIONS: (pick any or all)

Do you think owning guns is good or bad. (generally).

Would you personally ever own a gun? why?

Is an armed populace good or bad? Does it protect against despotism?

Owning a gun is a good thing if you are a responsible, compassionate adult. Owning a gun is a bad thing if you are an irresponsible, violent adult.

I would own a gun if I thought I needed the protection.

An armed populace is a good thing. The people could never stand up to the military, but it allows us to depend upon ourselves for our own protection.

 

[SoyLeche]

Owning a gun is a good thing if you are a responsible, compassionate adult. Owning a gun is a bad thing if you are an irresponsible, violent adult.

That's one of the problems I see with gun control - it only keeps guns out of the hands of the first group.

 

[PureX]

That's one of the problems I see with gun control - it only keeps guns out of the hands of the first group.

Clever comment, but the reason for this is because our gun laws have no teeth.

 

[SoyLeche]

Clever comment, but the reason for this is because our gun laws have no teeth.

No, the reason for this is that there exists a black market. Regulating the non-black market will never accomplish anything what that exists.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Do you think owning guns is good or bad. (generally).

Privately owned guns are bad... With out a gun you can not use one to take life ( man or animal)

Would you personally ever own a gun? why?

I have owned a shot gun, I used it to shoot rabbits to feed our farm dogs.
I see no need to own one now nor would I wish to.

Is an armed populace good or bad? Does it protect against despotism?

Armed uprisings can only take place in populations with personal Guns.
They are never effective in changing anything. they nearly always lose against superior force, after much maiming and killing.
It does not protect against despotism... It only replaces one lot with another.

I used to enjoy shooting in the army where I qualified as a marksman. It is not a skill I would want to use in action. (marksmen don't miss they just have some better hits than others)

 

[PureX]

No, the reason for this is that there exists a black market. Regulating the non-black market will never accomplish anything what that exists.

It's called a "black market" because it's illegal. If we were actually enforcing the laws against such markets (ie: the laws had some teeth), and passing laws that were based on common sense instead of emotionalism, we could eliminate many of our problems with gun violence.

The biggest problem America has with gun violence is that we as a people believe that violence is the first, best, and only solution to virtually every and all social dissagreement. This idea breeds gun violence, which in turn promotes the idea, which then breeds more gun violence still. It's a self-perpetuating cycle of violence. And the only way to stop it is to get the guns away from the idiots who believe that violence is the only way to solve a social problem.

I think if we would start with this as our goal, we could really begin to actually make some progress against gun violence. But this is exactly what the gun lobby does not want us to do, because in many cases they ARE the idiots to which I'm referring. And they don't want to give up their guns.

 

[jonny]

I'm sorry, too many deer? TO MANY???
Maybe we should start hunting humans too seeing as there are to many in the world!!!
What a ridiculous statement to make!

If the population of the herd overgrows the food source the deer will die anyway. Hunting is highly regulated. You can't just go out and shoot anything you want whenever you want. You have to get licenses and there are limits in locations and by animals or fish. If you want to hunt a deer, you have to pay to get in a lottery. They draw the number of tags based on the number of animals in the population. Also, there are limits on the sex of the animal that you can shoot - they don't want to kill off all the does, for example. In Idaho, they are begging hunters to shoot wolves because they are killing off other animal populations (there are too many). When the population gets down to a mangeable level, they will restrict the hunting again. There are also lakes where fish were introduced illegally that they use fisherman to get rid of the unnatural fish population.

The money used to purchase guns and licenses supports the environment. All these items have taxes on them used for sustaining and supporting the animal population and the environment where they live.

As for there being too many deer...we have herds of them, yes HERDS running through our yards and neighboorhoods. There is no shortage of deer, at least not here.

 

[SoyLeche]

If the population of the herd overgrows the food source the deer will die anyway. Hunting is highly regulated. You can't just go out and shoot anything you want whenever you want. You have to get licenses and there are limits in locations and by animals or fish. If you want to hunt a deer, you have to pay to get in a lottery. They draw the number of tags based on the number of animals in the population. Also, there are limits on the sex of the animal that you can shoot - they don't want to kill off all the does, for example. In Idaho, they are begging hunters to shoot wolves because they are killing off other animal populations (there are too many). When the population gets down to a mangeable level, they will restrict the hunting again. There are also lakes where fish were introduced illegally that they use fisherman to get rid of the unnatural fish population.

The money used to purchase guns and licenses supports the environment. All these items have taxes on them used for sustaining and supporting the animal population and the environment where they live.

As for there being too many deer...we have herds of them, yes HERDS running through our yards and neighboorhoods. There is no shortage of deer, at least not here.

Here in Virginia it is probably a bit different. There are so many deer around here that I doubt they use the lottery system. I've never had a desire to hunt out here though, so I'm not sure what the process is.

 

[jonny]

I am against any form of hunting unless you or your family are starving and have to survive. There is a problem with deer in Texas for example. Without hunting them they will over populate and starve, so what he said is correct. But what is missed in this statement is why. Man has taken the natural habitat away from these animals so there is less room for them to live. Once again, our solution to fix a problem that is our fault...

Not necessarily. The deer live in the mountains in Utah. At the base of the mountains is desert. The deer come down out of the mountains during the winter because HUMANS have planted trees and vegitation that they can eat. We didn't move in on their territory - they have moved in on ours.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

my room is like an armory, so yes i think owning a gun can be good, if the intentions are good. i hunt, i sport shoot, and i will blow anyone apart who wishes to harm my family, my pride and joy is a 1943 mosin-nagant, Tula made, and combat used. 14 tally marks on the underside of the receiver. plus a gun, like a sword, can be a beautiful peice of art

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No, the reason for this is that there exists a black market. Regulating the non-black market will never accomplish anything what that exists.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll do just as well fighting guns as we do fighting drugs. We'll see a massive increase in violence, more authority in the hands of the government, and good people with no way to defend themselves. I suppose the koolaid makes it impossible to consider unintended consequences - which is usually the result of liberalism. Ideas begin with compassion and then once implemented, turn to belligerence in the face of overwhelming failure. Which is what you see with most federal programs and why democrats are dangerous. They have compassion without reason and they don't care how many people they hurt in order to "help".

 

[jonny]

Personaly I see no good from guns, even using them in protection and war there is no honour with them. They are all too easy to use (talking from experience).
At least when protection and war were done with swords and even bows and arrows there was skill there, you actually had to think what you were doing instead of shooting of a gun which any idiot could do!

The shooter at Trolley Square was killed by an off-duty officer carrying a concealed weapon. The shooter would probably have got a weapon one way or another - there is no way that you will be able to rid the world of guns. He wasn't old enough to buy a handgun or ammunition on his own as it is. Restricting guns so that people can't defend themselves is moronic. How many more people should have died in Trolley Square in the name of "gun control"?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

How many more people should have died in Trolley Square in the name of "gun control"?

I suppose one could argue that gun control is worth dying for. Personally, I think its insane to remove guns from public ownership.

 

[SoyLeche]

Yeah, I'm sure we'll do just as well fighting guns as we do fighting drugs. We'll see a massive increase in violence, more authority in the hands of the government, and good people with no way to defend themselves. I suppose the koolaid makes it impossible to consider unintended consequences - which is usually the result of liberalism. Ideas begin with compassion and then once implemented, turn to belligerence in the face of overwhelming failure. Which is what you see with most federal programs and why democrats are dangerous. They have compassion without reason and they don't care how many people they hurt in order to "help".

Also from Freakonomics:

One deterrent that has proven moderately effective is a stiff increase in prison time for anyone caught in possession of an illegal gun. But there is plenty of room for improvement. Not that this is likely, but if the death penalty were assessed to anyone carrying an illegal gun, and if the penalty were actually enforced, gun crimes would surely plunge.

 

[Tigress]

That's one of the problems I see with gun control - it only keeps guns out of the hands of the first group.

That's not entirely true. Though the black market will likely continue, gun control does help to make guns less readily available to just anyone. For instance, not everyone is educated about where to get a gun illegally, and even if they are, it's not [always] as simple as walking into a corner store and purchasing one--something even an every day mentally unstable person could do, if background checks aren't mandatory.

 

[lilithu]

I am against any form of hunting unless you or your family are starving and have to survive. There is a problem with deer in Texas for example. Without hunting them they will over populate and starve, so what he said is correct. But what is missed in this statement is why. Man has taken the natural habitat away from these animals so there is less room for them to live.

NO, man has taken away their natural predators so that there are more of them than there otherwise would be. So hunting deer would more closely mimic the "natural" situation than would giving them more space.

Some of us liberals seem to have this notion that death would not occur if it weren't for humans and that all the animals would live happily ever after. Death is a natural part of life and we have upset the balance, partly by killing off predators and partly by feeding the cute animals so that their population exceeds what the environment can support, and partly by being against hunting.

The cows we eat are grown under mostly overcroweded situations, pumped with antibiotics, and then often slaughtered brutally because the processing plants operate under too fast a schedule to allow the factory workers to be more humane. A deer grows up free, eats what it finds, has space to move, and then - if the hunter knows what he or she is doing - dies almost immediately of a single gunshot. And you are against hunting why?

 

[jonny]

I suppose one could argue that gun control is worth dying for. Personally, I think its insane to remove guns from public ownership.

I have a friend who was beaten severely on the ski slopes by a Samoan gang. He ended up in the hospital as he had no way to defend himself. The next week he went and applied for a concealed carry permit. He now carries a weapon with him. My aunt goes running a lot and is also taking classes to get a concealed carry permit to protect herself if needed. People who are in weak positions need to be able to protect themselves from people with or without guns. I suppose my aunt could go running with a bodyguard, but a gun makes more sense.

 

[jonny]

NO, man has taken away their natural predators so that there are more of them than there otherwise would be. So hunting deer would more closely mimic the "natural" situation than would giving them more space.

Some of us liberals seem to have this notion that death would not occur if it weren't for humans and that all the animals would live happily ever after. Death is a natural part of life and we have upset the balance, partly by killing off predators and partly by feeding the cute animals so that their population exceeds what the environment can support, and partly by being against hunting.

The liberals should also consider that hunting licenses and gun purchases are one of the largest sources of funding for state wildlife agencies. Hunting licenses fund the budgets for the state fish and wildlife agencies. Taxes on arms and ammunition are used for wildlife restoration projects and hunter education. Duck stamps are used to purchase wetlands for wildlife. Google Pittman-Robertson Act for more information.

The cows we eat are grown under mostly overcroweded situations, pumped with antibiotics, and then often slaughtered brutally because the processing plants operate under too fast a schedule to allow the factory workers to be more humane. A deer grows up free, eats what it finds, has space to move, and then - if the hunter knows what he or she is doing - dies almost immediately of a single gunshot. And you are against hunting why?

I agree. Death is part of the life cycle. I personally try to limit my diet to free range animals, but this isn't always possible. A deer shot by a well-trained hunter dies much more humanely and has lived a much better life than a cow on a beef ranch.