whats your opinonin on guns

1. 60

   keioncsealsposted 11 years ago

   In my opinion on guns is that guns don't kill people people using the gun for the wrong reasons that's what kills people because if you think about it when
   You put the gun on a table its not going to fire but when you pick the gun up off the table and pull the trigger it will fire
   
   What do you think

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm conservative, and I'm for gun ownership,  but with reservations.
      I don't consider it a right of every person to have a gun!   Because there needs to be rules, of course, about age, mental status, etc.,  and even need.   For instance, for people who actually do hunt for food (and yes there are still some people who do that today),  there should be permission that includes any  family member who's one of those responsible for providing food, as long as that person shows ability to use the gun safely.
      
      And I don't see anything basically wrong with the "new" laws that Obama's proposing!   I think that so many people are against it because it's HIM who's proposing it---------and they and we have found him to be so blatantly untrustworthy and tyrannical that, no, we don't want him telling us what to do or not do.   That's his fault, not ours;  he has proven that he has an agenda behind everything he does, so it would be stupid to trust him.
      
      As far as what to do to keep criminals from having guns.......we can keep enforcing the laws that we already had on the books,  with possibly adding stricter background checks AND somehow making gun owners use more caution about who has access to those guns.  THAT I'm totally for.   Because if the Sandy Hook shooter hadn't had access to his mother's weapons, he wouldn't have been able to use them to kill those children.    I'm not against the mother having access to the guns;  and if she had turned out to use them in crimes, then there would've been nothing we could've done to stop her;  I don't think we can ever legislate that scenario unless the person has messed up before.    BUT she knew her son had mental problems,  and she even took him to gun practice sessions;  she should've made sure he didn't have access to those weapons on his own;   we CAN make a good attempt at keeping guns out of the hands of those household members who are known to have mental health problems or who have obvious anger problems etc.    To me, that would NOT be taking away rights;  it would be being very smart and protecting the rights of others who would be victims of that person's irresponsibility or disorder.
      
      Locally here, there was a child who got his parent's gun and killed his little brother with it.
      Obviously, there has to be a way to keep guns out of the hands of a small child as well as an older person who shouldn't have access to it.     So.......I think there should be "household checks" (as in volunteer information), maybe, to determine if anyone lives there who is mentally incapable of being responsible with a gun.     If the person who wants to own the gun doesn't truthfully give up that information, and still wants to have the gun,  then they should be held responsible for it if their child or live-in mentally-unstable brother or whoever etc. gets the gun and uses it in a crime.       We may have the initial right to gun ownership, but that right carries responsibility with it.    Just like driving a car.    If a person is proven to be irresponsible with a car, his right to drive gets taken away.   So if people aren't gonna be responsible about where they keep their guns and who has gun access, then maybe they don't need to keep that "right" to bear personal arms.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "I'm conservative, and I'm for gun ownership,  but with reservations.
         I don't consider it a right of every person to have a gun!   Because there needs to be rules, of course, about age, mental status, etc.,  and even need."
         
         Actually it is a right of every American to keep and bear arms. The federal government has overstepped their authority and put limitations on who can and cannot own them. The second amendment is very clear.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Brenda - stipulations? That's your answer?
         Do you believe it is possible to legislate every possible scenario? Every possible human condition?
         Gun control is not the answer.
         I have not researched it, but there is a claim that the U.S. already has around 9000 different gun control laws on the books, (Federal and State laws) - do you think one more law or one more stipulation or condition will make a difference?
         
         Guns are not the problem  - people are. Ask the TSA about nail clippers and box cutters. Where are the laws controlling them?
         
         Your response seems sincere, but from  the heart and not the brain.
         
         GA

         replyreport
2. 60

   Jmillis2006posted 11 years ago

   I do not believe that banning guns will help stop violence. People who want to commit crimes or hurt others will still find away to get a gun and or find. Different method to follow through with there desire. The only thing that will come from banning guns is leaving good people vulnerable to these criminals as they will have no way to defend themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      keioncsealsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      yea thats true but look at the people who just have a gun for protection and the people who dont have gun they suppose to get shot and do nothing to protect themselfs

      replyreport
3. 95

   wildernessposted 11 years ago

   I recently researched the question of "does gun ownership rates affect the homicide rate" in countries all over the country and wrote it up as a hub.
   
   Surprisingly, there is no correlation at all between how many guns there are and how many murders there are.  It would appear that indeed, guns do not jump up and kill people.  It also became quite obvious that people wanting to kill will do so, with or without a gun.
   
   Unfortunately, the gun control advocates don't want to hear any of this; the only discussion is always about gun homicides going down with gun ownership (a no brainer) and never about what happens to overall homicide rates.  Thus the demand to control others in their desire to own a gun, but without any reason for wanting that control, outside of their own personal dislike and/or fear of guns.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      keioncsealsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      yea i know the people who use guns in good way do think it will effect them

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Oh, it will definitely affect them, and in a very negative way.  The sad part is that it will do nothing to slow the slaughter on the streets of the country.

         replyreport
   2. 56

      Education Answerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      wilderness,
      
      You're wrong when you said, "It would appear that indeed, guns do not jump up and kill people."  As you know, scary guns with high-capacity magazines do in fact jump up and kill people.  After all, why would so many people in Congress be so aggressively interested in banning them if it weren't true?  It's not the people who pull the trigger; it's those bad, scary guns that are the problem.  Wilderness, get with the progressives, get frantically emotional, and make the right, politically correct decision.  It's what Hollywood would want you to do.  This is the change for which so many Americans voted for.  If you don't like it, you're a racist or a gun nut, and you know it.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         YES!  BAN (vote for me) ALL ASSAULT (vote for me) RIFLES!  THEY ARE (vote for me) ONLY FOR KILLING (vote for me) PEOPLE AND HAVE (vote for me) OTHER REASON! (vote for me 'cause I HATE GUNS!).
         
         But...it just doesn't sound right when I say it - guess I'm just a gun nut.  Not a very good one, I'm afraid - just one lever action hunting rifle - but the "rights" angle, that's important to me.  Maybe I'm a better freedom nut than gun nut?

         replyreport
4. 77

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   I don't need one, I never will have one..

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      How do you know?

      replyreport
      1. 57

         Alberic Oposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Some people chose not to have one. That's their choice. If you are not ready for the responsibility that gun ownership entails, not comfortable with firearms and/or not willing to use it, then you shouldn't have one.

         replyreport
5. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   To the O.P. -I strongly recommend you learn how to spell before you try handling a gun ! One mistake with a trigger ......well , it could be bad !

   replyreport
6. 61

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   Isn't it interesting how the only safe society that we as adults can create is one where every man woman and child needs a gun.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I find it interesting that a country born of the gun, grown by the gun, depended on its citizens to protect it and fight for it by the gun should now consider removing the rights of those people who own guns legally.
      As an outsider (UK) it seems strange that your government are focusing on legally held guns when they should be focusing on those who are more likely to use them.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Anyone and almost everyone is capable of using the gun. It is not simply insane people, it is not only unsavory individuals hiding in the shadows. It is great school kids who may feel the need to kill the classmates, it may be a son who's upset with their mother and or father who can shoot them while they're asleep. One might think they're in control of their emotions but let's say in a road rage situation one forgot to leave that gun at home and maybe through fear be it actual or imaginary they reach for that gun.
         
         Are we saying the only way we can live together is if both of us are armed?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What proportion are spur of the moment killings?
            Anyone who uses the gun in mass killings are insane (whether temporary or not).
            Gun control will not stop people using guns. It will however reduce the likelihood of the criminal who is prepared to use a gun from being shot back at.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               If we are to go on your premise then in order to have a safe society every man woman and child needs to be armed. Have we got shoulder holsters for 6-month-old babies that we can hosted them with a Derringer?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  My point was and still is, restricting guns in a country where there are 300 Million of them will do nothing for the safety of those who no longer can have them, it only helps those who will take no notice of the law and they will be able to operate with less likelihood of being shot at themselves.
                  Again in the UK we have the some of the strictest firearms laws in the world and it still doesn't stop criminals from killing people with guns, it also doesn't stop loonies from killing people with guns either.

                  replyreport
               2. 77

                  Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  This is the best that star can do, eh.

                  replyreport
      2. 84

         GA Andersonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         What you are seeing is political pandering. Not unique to the U.S., but we do seem to be taking it to a new level.
         
         What is unfortunate, (and this is not unique to the U.S., the U.K. has many such issues), is that the electorate is so gullible as to be satisfied with it.
         
         GA

         replyreport
7. 60

   Zelkiiroposted 11 years ago

   If it were up to me, gun ownership would be just like being rescued by Spiderman: everybody gets one.

   replyreport
8. 61

   SpanStarposted 11 years ago

   I guess we gun lovers never get tired of hearing reports of people being murdered by guns day after day. One should note from the article this is not the lunatics we keep referring to, this is not thugs shooting at people but he probable be Labeled as such because he has a criminal record.
   
   http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/16/po … enders-in/

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I guess those who enjoy a beer or two after work never get tired of hearing reports of people being killed by drunk drivers day after day.
      
      I guess those who enjoy a glass of wine with their spaghetti never get tired of hearing reports of people being killed by drunk drivers day after day.
      
      I guess those who enjoy a cocktail at a party never get tired of hearing reports of people being killed by drunk drivers day after day.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         It would appear that you are not concerned with human life just so long as the death toll is equal in other areas.

         replyreport
         1. 77

            Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            It would appear that you are not concerned about human life and death or you would be agitating to ban all alcohol from human society. It kills far more people than guns do each year, and does significantly more damage.
            
            But you don't care as long as you can have your beer after work, eh. No matter how much you are contributing to the carnage by being part of the industry that feeds it.

            replyreport
9. 77

   Jack Burtonposted 11 years ago

   Star sez: " this is not the lunatics we keep referring to, this is not thugs shooting at people..."
   
   The Newspaper reports: Moore's parole expired in 2010. In addition to his MURDER CONVICTION, he has a long arrest record in Nashville and felony convictions in Shelby County for aggravated assault and cocaine possession, police said.
   
   Jack replies: And people like star never, ever quite understand why gun owners don't trust people such as him when he refuses to stop living in fantasy land.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      SpanStarposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm living in fantasyland-Gees I'm not the one referring to myself Jack replies if that doesn't sound like a session for couch and a specialist I don't know what does.
      
      I've already indicated that he had a criminal record the problem I'm having is people like you is once you have been convicted you are labeled for the rest of your life.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Jack Burtonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         If I lived in fantasy land I would refer to myself as "Fred" eh. Or better yet, Susie.
         
         Yeah, being convicted of murder, aggravated assault and cocaine possession over a period of years does tend to hang a label on someone for the rest of their lives.

         replyreport