Do you support gun ownership in the USA or not?

[Stakanov]

I ask this question because I see some people talking about it here and there.

Personally, I live in Europe in a country where it is illegal to carry a gun, or a bladed weapon, or tear gas, or to respond to an attack with my fists.
In the United States, if I understood correctly, everyone has a gun on them. And it's ok to go outside with it.

What is the difference in the event of an attack in a European country or in the United States?

The difference is that in the United States the criminal is armed to the teeth and can literally massacre anyone...
In Europe we certainly have nothing to defend ourselves except calling the police but the advantage we have and which in my opinion demonstrates that the right to have a weapon should be prohibited is that the criminal in Europe is armed up to 'to the teeth and can literally massacre anyone...

[Ulfrinn]

Moogal™님이 먼저 게시:

Dr. Johnny Fever님이 먼저 게시:

In Europe you are allowed to own shotguns and rifles. Which are both firearms.

Subject to licensing, members of the UK public may own rifles and shotguns. However, most handguns have been banned in Great Britain since the Dunblane school massacre in 1996. Handguns are permitted in Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man which have their own legislation.

Hmm, didnt know that UK had a big school shooting. But before that handguns were kinda allowed or (with license)?

Before that, they also didn't have any other big shootings though, did they? So it's not like a ban suddenly stopped some trend.

[Ulfrinn]

ZZZZZ님이 먼저 게시:

Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:

How does that work for the 5'2 woman on the way to her car at night after work, approached by a rapist and pulls a gun out of her purse to stop him? Just a weak mind wanting to feel dangerous?

but thats the exact issue, the gun turns u into a tool of murder.. till a person notices that someone is going to rape them its usually to late to pull a gun.. means u need to be ready to kill someone already before u identify their intentions

Not according to the millions of people who use firearms to prevent themselves from being victimized per year. You've completely fabricated that nonsense that "if you see someone coming, it's too late" just to make up a scenario that fits your ideology. And there's hard evidence disproving that, FBI crime statistics for example.

[Uncle Sam]

SukiAmericanDollStarkiller님이 먼저 게시:

Uncle Sam님이 먼저 게시:

Yes tech does have advanced alot, but people can hack drones and logistics hubs and can do sabotage like the partisans in europe did during ww2.
I still think many people would refuse to just "follow orders", one thing is a random folk from a random country that you're not ever going to travel again, a far different thing is people from cities you might travel often being collateral damage. It's an unthinkable worst case hypothetical scenario.

Whens the last time one of our military installations was hacked by a non government entity? I think your being a bit foolish in your analysis. Once again we cant hack anything without wired or wireless internet relay fighting our own government areas would look like Gaza looks now. No water no electricity and bombed to hell and we see how the world reacts to that slow and cautiously we have the most powerful military by far. Countries wont come stop our feds if they get funky with the civs.

Nuclear facilities and the ACH got hack by a bunch of young folks quite recently, in regards to humanitarian aid countries will find a way to send food, water, generators & fuel through the southern border, however as far internet & communications in general goes it could get disrupted by electrical warfare jamming a lot.
And if bold enough, they might start to blockade the main sea trade chokepoints be it panama canal, suez canal, etc. America it's the so called "melting pot" country alot of people got family living there, so I do think the irish, vietnamese, mexicans among many others will find a way to help out the civilians.

[Morkonan]

Henry Gamer님이 먼저 게시:

:D님이 먼저 게시:

No, we wouldn't.
SHALL NOT be infringed is pretty specific. If we restrict everything aside from muzzle-loaded fieearms that is very much infringement.

WRONG! The right to own one shall not be infringed. Dies not specify what kind you can own! The SCOTUS just has to rule that this is the real meaning and then that is now the law.

A point of clarification from a non-attorney:

While that statement is technically true, that such a limit could potentially be ruled, it would also be quickly struck down.

There are acceptable limitations regarding The Bill of Rights. For instance, the First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, has limitations placed upon it. One is not free to say anything one wants anytime and any place, especially when it infringes upon the Rights of others. One can not demand a private individual provide access to their home so that one can then insult them and lie to their spouse about infidelity... There ARE limits to one's "Freedom of Speech."

Likewise, there are limits to the Second Amendment, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This Right can not be restricted, however, to the point of it being useless. One can not own, purely within the power of this Amendment, a fully automatic weapon. One CAN own such a thing if one further obtains a Federal Firearms permit. Black Powder weapons and weapons manufactured prior to a certain date have some exemptions. (I don't know what they are, offhand)

So, in an effort to reduce the potential for a private citizen to own an "effective" firearm... things would get very serious, very quick. Even if a reduction in effectiveness is the goal, it has to be weighed against the enforcement of the "Shall Not Be Infringed" to ensure such a thing is effective at fulfilling that obligation of the Second Amendment. Thus, as it exists now, semi-automatic weapons are included, but automatic weapons require special permitting (legal infringement).

[Siluva]

Ulfrinn님이 먼저 게시:

Europe has in recent history had massacres that have killed dozens, in some cases, nearly 100, some with, some without guns. If you think government making laws telling a law abiding citizen what they can or cannot own is going to stop a criminal from harming people, you're kidding yourself. And if you don't think those caravans from the middle east which nobody did background checks on or even padded down didn't contains insurgents which have brought their own weapons with them, you're kidding yourself even further.

Things are going to get a lot worse for Europe in the near future, and you're out of stuff to blame it on.

Pretty much, those who want heavy gun restrictions tends to forgot they only apply to the law abiding citizen.

[Dracoco OwO]

Tsubame ⭐님이 먼저 게시:

There are European countries where gun ownership and even carry are legal.

Case in point? People openly carrying guns in Switzerland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland#/media/File:Riding_the_bus.jpg

I do support gun ownership, especially under certain circumstances, but only with very good screening of the to-be owners.

Otherwise I prefer a ban over a free for all market.

This is like the one country that isn't in EU but far in the west side of Europe.

[MistuhG]

Siluva님이 먼저 게시:

Pretty much, those who want heavy gun restrictions tends to forgot they only apply to the law abiding citizen.

They haven't forgotten. But they are hoping you did.

[Gym Leader Rory wants to battle!]

Uncle Sam님이 먼저 게시:

SukiAmericanDollStarkiller님이 먼저 게시:

Whens the last time one of our military installations was hacked by a non government entity? I think your being a bit foolish in your analysis. Once again we cant hack anything without wired or wireless internet relay fighting our own government areas would look like Gaza looks now. No water no electricity and bombed to hell and we see how the world reacts to that slow and cautiously we have the most powerful military by far. Countries wont come stop our feds if they get funky with the civs.

Nuclear facilities and the ACH got hack by a bunch of young folks quite recently, in regards to humanitarian aid countries will find a way to send food, water, generators & fuel through the southern border, however as far internet & communications in general goes it could get disrupted by electrical warfare jamming a lot.
And if bold enough, they might start to blockade the main sea trade chokepoints be it panama canal, suez canal, etc. America it's the so called "melting pot" country alot of people got family living there, so I do think the irish, vietnamese, mexicans among many others will find a way to help out the civilians.

Once again I think your being foolish the feds are standby with a ♥♥♥♥ around a find out. Personally Id flee or die trying my obligation is to my family not my country.

[Uncle Sam]

SukiAmericanDollStarkiller님이 먼저 게시:

Uncle Sam님이 먼저 게시:

Nuclear facilities and the ACH got hack by a bunch of young folks quite recently, in regards to humanitarian aid countries will find a way to send food, water, generators & fuel through the southern border, however as far internet & communications in general goes it could get disrupted by electrical warfare jamming a lot.
And if bold enough, they might start to blockade the main sea trade chokepoints be it panama canal, suez canal, etc. America it's the so called "melting pot" country alot of people got family living there, so I do think the irish, vietnamese, mexicans among many others will find a way to help out the civilians.

Once again I think your being foolish the feds are standby with a ♥♥♥♥ around a find out. Personally Id flee or die trying my obligation is to my family not my country.

Yes I might be super naive you're right, yet I'm still stubborn and I do think some sort of help will be provided, I still have a glimmer of hope in regards to humanity in general.

[Triple G]

Siluva님이 먼저 게시:

Pretty much, those who want heavy gun restrictions tends to forgot they only apply to the law abiding citizen.

But any law only applies to the law abiding citizens in that regard.

If there would be a law about giving away the guns, You´re not a law abiding citizen any more if You don´t do it - simple as that.

And i would go a step further and say that the law abiding citizen is a myth, as i can´t imagine people, who have the age to be responsible in front of the law - and never disregarded any law.

[ShadowShifterMarlith]

Gun Ownership should of been Banned in America before 2016,
before Donald Trump ever came into Office... I supported this...

Then Donald Trump & Joe Biden happened, & now I support
Gun Ownership more then ever...

Don't blame Video Games, Don't blame Guns?

No, blame the Government for this...

They are responsible for the rise in Gun Ownerships in America, them & their stupidity...

I hope it ends up coming to a Point where the US Government
wants to forcefully enter People's houses in order to remove
these Guns from America, & People give the USA Government
the Middle Finger, & arm themselves to defend their American Rights, oO

The American Government isn't the Government People grew up with,
the American Government is a completely different Government Today,
& People need to see the Truth with their own eyes, & see for themselves
that the American Government is a hateful disgusting Government Today...

I'm not saying People should try to murder the American Government,
i'm just saying People should stop listening to the Government, &
try to take the Country back, themselves, learn, & figure things out
on their own, & actually make judgement calls themselves...

But Americans won't do that, because they are too afraid to
defy the American Government... They believe deep down
inside that the American Government is too powerful to do
anything...

But American's don't realize that the American Government
is powerless without the People... That they are only Powerful,
because they Control People in America... That is their source
of Power, if you take that away... All the American Governmant
can do is whine & complain, as People don't listen to them...

Impeachment is just one example of what i'm talking about...
It happened with Donald Trump in 2020, it could still work
Today, only difference is...

The reality is you don't need an Impeachment to stop listening,
all ya gotta do is stop listening... & it's this Control over People,
that has People not thinking for themselves, & keeping them
from seeing the Truth...

That America is really, really not better, & it's actually worst Today...

Your belief that you are Free, & more Free then ever before,
is a figmant of your imagination, & entirely artificial, & a complete lie...

Crime it's self is overtaking America in ways that the American
Government can't even stop it anymore, & it's coming to a point
that ending the lives of Politicians are required to resolve these
matters if things don't improve by the 2024 Election...

The Problem is...

There is a Solution that doesn't involve more bloodshed in America,
all it simply requires, is People to turn the Government Off, &
that People start thinking for themselves for once, & actually
determines what they believe is right for their own life...

No bloodshed would have to be spilt to make that happen...

But this ability to Control People is preventing People from doing this,
because Control is a powerful thing, & People are really, really invested in it...

People are listening to Politicians right now, instead of listening to
their own brain, & their own gutt feelings, & they are easily brainwashed,
because they listen to the bull crap, & invest too much of themselves into it...






Do I think taking Guns away from American Citizens is the answer to
America's problems?

No, I think it'll only add to the problems, & further provoke them to be worst...

I don't believe taking Guns away is the answer we need...

I don't care if it's an assault riffle, or a pistol, I think the answer lies elsewhere...

And no one wants to explore it as a better alternative Solution...

That is kinda where I stand, & think of the situation...

[kingjames488]

guns are just tools... like hammers are tools... or knives are tools...

they do a thing, that thing isn't inherently good or bad... it's how you use the tool.

[Siluva]

Triple G님이 먼저 게시:

But any law only applies to the law abiding citizens in that regard.

If there would be a law about giving away the guns, You´re not a law abiding citizen any more if You don´t do it - simple as that.

And i would go a step further and say that the law abiding citizen is a myth, as i can´t imagine people, who have the age to be responsible in front of the law - and never disregarded any law.

And you can do all the mental gymnastics and speculations you want but in the end of the day the reality knock back at your door, people here are stabbed / killed / assaulted nearly everyday despise our country having heavy restrictions that even prevent you from holding a knife.

[Netaris]

kingjames488님이 먼저 게시:

guns are just tools... like hammers are tools... or knives are tools...

they do a thing, that thing isn't inherently good or bad... it's how you use the tool.

Exactly, give a gatling gun to a law abiding citizen and he will just have a lot of fun at the shooting range with it. Give a spoon to a djihadist and he'll find a way to kill somebody with it.

The will to kill others is what really matter, those without this will, aka most of the peoples around you, will never be a threat, even with military grade weaponry in their hands. But give the most harmless tool to a malevolent person and he will find a way to weaponize it and kill you with it.

I'm to forbid dangerous persons to own guns, 100% approved. But the average guy who just want to have some fun and eventually protect his own with it ? Just leave him alone with his guns, this guy isn't a threat for anybody, except for those who may try to attack him. And I'm fine with that.

[Stranger]

Yeah it's a tyrannical government whose front-end largely perpetuates itself through crime and fascist 'yu cannot stop mee" actions.

Everyone should have at least one serviceable primary firearm they practice with, just in case street-level crime (or government forces, foreign or domestic, posing as street criminals) decide to enter your house and kidnap you.

I don't really support concealed carry though. It encourages situations where the optimal strategic choice is to whip your gun out of hiding and pop someone by surprise, and seeking alternative means of conflict resolution only undermines this strategic positioning. Plus accidental discharges are enough of a risk that everyone carrying one around is asking for it, and only some carrying is deeply problematic.

I also struggle to think of a likely circumstance where open carry is necessary without some kind of militia preparedness organization with clearly defined rules who is currently engaged in a live fire conflict.