It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is everyone's problem with responsible gun ownership?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
This came after reading and participating in this thread:

American Patriotism Terrifies Me

Supposedly a thread about patriotism that kind of turned into a thread about guns. And, about half the thread opposed guns and half the thread would defend the right to own guns to the death. Most of us who were defending the right to own guns were directing our comments towards responsible gun ownership.

So, what is the problem with responsible gun ownership? What is the problem with responsible people owning guns for protection? What is the problem with owning guns for hunting? What is the problem with collecting guns? What is the problem with owning and using guns in responsible ways?

Do people honestly believe that if guns were banned that humanity would suddenly join hands and sing Kum By Yah? Do people honestly believe that if guns were banned that society would suddenly become more peaceful?

I grew up around guns and have no problem with responsible people having them, either for self protection or hunting or for collecting, for that matter. I don't believe that society would be more peaceful if guns were banned nor to I believe that humanity would suddenly come together to make the world a better place if guns were banned.

So, what is the problem with responsible gun ownership and if guns were banned, what positive difference would it make for the responsible people who no longer had the option to protect themselves with firearms?




posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
There IS no problem with responsible ownership.

I don't currently own any firearms but most of the people around me do, and by and large are very responsible with them.

They have bought them legally and have them properly registered.

Those who have children keep the ammo and the guns properly stored and most importantly, do not leave them loaded. They teach the children that guns are tools, not toys.

Most have CHL liscences and know how to aim and fire properly, so there is a small chance of them accidentally hitting a person.

Most importantly--there are enough guns around that no one is going to whip on out, and do something stupid.

Armed societies are indeed polite ones.
For the record--this is something I am working on a whole article about--look at this list of school shootings, and note how there seems to be a direct correlation with school shootings being rarer in areas where guns are seen as taboo.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic1
 


The problem with "responsible" gun ownership is not the guns, is the term "responsible." After all gun ownership is always "responsible" until the moment that it is not.

Let me put it this way, I have lived half my life in Europe and the last half in the US, and I never worried about being shot in Europe.

Having said that, once the law is established and everyone has the right to gun ownership, I'm not going to be standing here with a spoon. So as the law recently changed where I live in DC, I am about to purchase a weapon. Still, I wish I didn't have to.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I wrote this in that post and I will stand by what I said in this post as well .


Some of those supposed responsible gun owners are the ones who abuse guns just as much as those who are not responsible gun owners.
Some of them are the PROBLEM not the answer .

Now granted not all fall into that category ..but alot of them do ..I grew up with supposed responsible gun owners and they were no more responsible than those who are outlaws .....
On paper most of us would be considered responsible wouldnt we ?
Same with drivers licenses ..I know about 30 people just in my community that should never have been given a drivers license ..They are wreckless and dangerous and I do not even want to be on the roads with them (which is why I do not drive) ....


Really I am not sure either way how I feel about Gun regulations ...I do think people at one time needed them to hunt and kill ..but these days most people dont even do that ..they can just go and buy food (is almost cheaper to buy it than to pay all that money it costs for permits and ammo etc ) ....
And yes sometimes someone having a gun actually helped someone ..
But I am not sure if those times outweigh the other times I can think of when people do not need to just be packing all of the time ...

We dont live like they did in the Wild West now ..I really do not see why its so necessary anymore .

And IF the System really wanted to take care of all the violence problems they would KEEP THOSE GANG members and serious violent criminals in JAIL instead of letting them all out to kill again ...and keeping the non violent ones behind bars ..



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
That is what I, as a responsible person like about SigSauer. You can never have an excuse like "I thought the safety was on".

Just as a sharp knife is safer than a dull knife. It is the best safety tip for a sidearm. Pull the trigger and it shoots. No if's and's or but's.
(.357 Korean era military issue revolver is nice as well).

But anyone who leaves a gun around, kids or no kids, is crazy. I almost got shot by someone messing with a gun he had no business handling. It was at an Odd Fellows Temple. And the idiot was the manager. How stupid is that?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Good point with the term "responsible". But, I have to disagree that all gun ownership is responsible until it is not. If a criminal gets a gun (which he/she cannot do legally), with the intent of commiting a questionable act with it, there is nothing responsible about it.

And, in DC, with the handgun ban, did that lower gun crime in the area or did it go up?

And, people do still hunt for food, no matter that they can go to the grocery store and buy cow meat. Some people prefer wild game as it is healthier.

And, the idiot at the Odd Fellows Temple....well, idiot says it all.

[edit on 10/12/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Good point with the term "responsible". But, I have to disagree that all gun ownership is responsible until it is not. If a criminal gets a gun (which he/she cannot do legally), with the intent of commiting a questionable act with it, there is nothing responsible about it.

And, in DC, with the handgun ban, did that lower gun crime in the area or did it go up?


I was actually speaking more to people who purchase guns with the intent of being "responsible."

As far as DC, the law only changed a few weeks ago as per the latest supreme court ruling so I believe that it might be a little early for stats.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
A person who commits a gun crime is not a responsible gun user. They don't define the behavior of the majority of people that use guns.

It's like saying nobody can drive a car anymore, because somebody might drive while drunk.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


Gotcha.


But, when talking about the ban, I meant when the ban was implemented 30+ years ago. In the early 90s, DC was the murder capital of the world....with a gun ban in place.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
It's like saying nobody can drive a car anymore, because somebody might drive while drunk.


Well, like I said above, I am not anti-gun by nature. I do however have to take exception to this tired old analogy.

Cars primary purpose is transportation, guns primary purpose is to shoot.
And in all states require a license and registration and insurance to operate a vehicle, not so for firearms.

Surely that should be the other way around.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


I did not honestly know that SD; you have taught me something new. I thought that permits and registrations were required for handguns, but not necessarily for shotguns or rifles.

Here are the gun laws by state:

Gun laws by State

In my mind, responsible gun owners should register their guns and get a permit, whether they have to or not.

[edit on 10/12/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   



Well, like I said above, I am not anti-gun by nature. I do however have to take exception to this tired old analogy.

Cars primary purpose is transportation, guns primary purpose is to shoot.
And in all states require a license and registration and insurance to operate a vehicle, not so for firearms.

Surely that should be the other way around.





Here there are gun laws... a pretty good balance between registering the guns but not in such a stringent way that it encroaches upon the 2nd Amendment.

They are pretty stringantly enforced, at least locally.

I had a friend once who kept an unregistered pistol--one night some cracked-out guy broke into his house and tried to rob him. My friend shot the guy, and didn't get in trouble for that since it was legitimately self defence, but still got a ticked for fireing a gun in city limits and and a citation for having an unregistered gun.

But the biggest thing is the cultural attitudes towards them.

I can't say it enough, when people view guns as tools instead of being inherantly afraid of them, or making them seem like forbidden candy, that is when things begin to change.

And anyone who commits a crime with a gun should absolutely be held to a higher punishment standard.

[edit on 12-10-2008 by asmeone2]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

In the early 90s, DC was the murder capital of the world....with a gun ban in place.


That has always been a misleading stat. The reason for that is the topographical nature of DC. The actual population of DC is about 1 million, but the DC metropolitan area, as it would be defined if it was any other city, has almost 5 million residents. source As a result DC stats are always skewed.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


My friend I thought you lived in Texas.
Don't you guys shoot the snooze button every morning?



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by asmeone2
 


My friend I thought you lived in Texas.
Don't you guys shoot the snooze button every morning?





Me personally, I just sleep through it.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


It is based on per capita murders, but logic would reason that if an area had a gun ban in place, then gun crimes would go down. My point was that the ban did not lower gun crimes and did not make society better.

So, if it will not lower gun crimes and not make society better, then how would a country-wide ban like some advocate make things better for anyone other than the criminals, while making things more dangerous for people who could no longer protect themselves with weapons similar to those of the criminal? If the criminals can have them, why not the responsible citizens?

[edit on 10/12/2008 by skeptic1]



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
In Britain, we're not even allowed to carry knives. They've been causing too many deaths recently. I would not want the standard teenager holding guns, no matter how responsible they thought they were.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
In Britain, we're not even allowed to carry knives. They've been causing too many deaths recently. I would not want the standard teenager holding guns, no matter how responsible they thought they were.


The way things work here, no one can legally carry a gun without a CHL. No one under 21 can buy handguns or ammo, and one must be at least 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun.

There are alternatives in between banning guns and letting everyone in the world carry one.

And honestly--there is no possible way to make a person completely "safe--" if one is intent enough on murduring or hurting someone, they don't even need a weapon.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 

So, if it will not lower gun crimes and not make society better, then how would a country-wide ban like some advocate make things better for anyone other than the criminals, while making things more dangerous for people who could no longer protect themselves with weapons similar to those of the criminal?


I don't know that a country wide ban would significantly reduce gun crime in the case of the United States.

The question is one of cultural momentum. As opposed to European or Asian countries, gun ownership is built to the American culture, and no where is this more apparent that here on ATS. And there are just too many guns in the system to guarantee that criminals would not have access to them. And as long as criminals have access, it is reasonable to allow access to law abiding citizens for protection. Hence a cultural catch 22.



posted on Oct, 12 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

Originally posted by redled
In Britain, we're not even allowed to carry knives. They've been causing too many deaths recently. I would not want the standard teenager holding guns, no matter how responsible they thought they were.


The way things work here, no one can legally carry a gun without a CHL. No one under 21 can buy handguns or ammo, and one must be at least 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun.

There are alternatives in between banning guns and letting everyone in the world carry one.

And honestly--there is no possible way to make a person completely "safe--" if one is intent enough on murduring or hurting someone, they don't even need a weapon.


That's the point though, a gun makes it easier to kill someone when you're in some kinda dire mood with them, and by making them not carry one, you make it harder, so they have to be more pissed to go through with it, so less people die. We achieved it by a series of amnesties after WWII when lots of people had their service weaponary, but we got rid of them and are safer for it. People can think that they are responsible, but temper dictates this not always to be true.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join