[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[Yukonastan]

Just an interesting question I had relating to gun rights or gun control. As many of you know, the issue of gun rights isn't black and white, even though the extremes do make it appear pretty close. And I think that that's a problem.

Some background - I'm a Canadian gun owner and hunter, so I fall under Canadian laws. These laws are a quagmire that one needs to be totally batshit insane to understand, and they definitely need reform. However, the principle behind them, and the most universally applicable ones, do make sense from a practical standpoint.

I believe myself to be quite pro-gun overall, but at the same time, I do see the gun control side of things. This leaves me in the middle; My view is simplified down to this in the end - I believe that gun owners should be responsible for being safe with their guns. I believe in mandatory safety training and licensing before one can own a gun. It's cheap, it's a weekend course, and in the end, it's proven to make people handle their guns in a safer manner.

I know that people disagree with this, especially in the US, where one can buy a Barrett M107, essentially a small cannon, with only a waiting period and a background check. That's a ridiculous and frankly stupid way of going about it.

However, on the other hand, once one has completed their safety training and acquired their licence, they should be free to buy whatever they want within reasonable limits. If I want a semiautomatic AK74, I should be able to get a semiautomatic AK74. However, I shouldn't just be able to get a machine gun, unless I upgrade my licence to prove that I can safely and responsibly handle a machine gun. I should be able to buy a black rifle to shoot with without it being classified as restricted. The only black rifle that should be restricted that way is one with a burst-fire or automatic fire mode in that particular rifle. A semiautomatic only black rifle shouldn't be made illegal for looking like the automatic black rifle.

So, what are NSG's thoughts on this issue right now?

[Highland Appalachia]

I'm a big supporter of gun rights, including concealed carry. Thanks for making the poll, good range of options.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'll have you know that my Barret M107 is an integral part of my home defense network

As for the question itself, I feel like the current amount of gun control in the US would be fine if it was more thoroughly upheld and things like mental health records were easier for dealers to access.

[Gun Manufacturers]

I'll have you know that my Barret M107 is an integral part of my home defense network

As for the question itself, I feel like the current amount of gun control in the US would be fine if it was more thoroughly upheld and things like mental health records were easier for dealers to access.

Dealers don't need to access mental health records, that's a job for NICS.

[New Skaaneland]

I don't believe that a dictatorship has to be eminent just because of gun regulations but it's a step towards tyranny.

[Diopolis]

I'm of the opinion that if we can't trust you with a machine gun, we probably shouldn't trust you with a shotgun, barring the need for special training to operate a machine gun safely that is not necessary in the case of a shotgun. In other words, I hold the (radical, I know)opinion that gun control really doesn't need to be concerned with what kind of guns you own, but with who owns guns.

[Yukonastan]

I'm of the opinion that if we can't trust you with a machine gun, we probably shouldn't trust you with a shotgun, barring the need for special training to operate a machine gun safely that is not necessary in the case of a shotgun. In other words, I hold the (radical, I know)opinion that gun control really doesn't need to be concerned with what kind of guns you own, but with who owns guns.

Basically this is my view as well.

[Lutheran Kingdom]

Just an interesting question I had relating to gun rights or gun control. As many of you know, the issue of gun rights isn't black and white, even though the extremes do make it appear pretty close. And I think that that's a problem.

Some background - I'm a Canadian gun owner and hunter, so I fall under Canadian laws. These laws are a quagmire that one needs to be totally batshit insane to understand, and they definitely need reform. However, the principle behind them, and the most universally applicable ones, do make sense from a practical standpoint.

I believe myself to be quite pro-gun overall, but at the same time, I do see the gun control side of things. This leaves me in the middle; My view is simplified down to this in the end - I believe that gun owners should be responsible for being safe with their guns. I believe in mandatory safety training and licensing before one can own a gun. It's cheap, it's a weekend course, and in the end, it's proven to make people handle their guns in a safer manner.

I know that people disagree with this, especially in the US, where one can buy a Barrett M107, essentially a small cannon, with only a waiting period and a background check. That's a ridiculous and frankly stupid way of going about it.

However, on the other hand, once one has completed their safety training and acquired their licence, they should be free to buy whatever they want within reasonable limits. If I want a semiautomatic AK74, I should be able to get a semiautomatic AK74. However, I shouldn't just be able to get a machine gun, unless I upgrade my licence to prove that I can safely and responsibly handle a machine gun. I should be able to buy a black rifle to shoot with without it being classified as restricted. The only black rifle that should be restricted that way is one with a burst-fire or automatic fire mode in that particular rifle. A semiautomatic only black rifle shouldn't be made illegal for looking like the automatic black rifle.

So, what are NSG's thoughts on this issue right now?

I do understand some gun safety course, but the waiting period is a bad idea, I am glad texas does not have a waiting period.

[New Skaaneland]

I do perfectly well with a machine gun in the Metro on Battlefield 3. 200 shots regardless of the presence of enemies. Then 200 shots more.

Yet somehow I don't think this is enough grounds to put Stalin or Pol Pot in charge of my country. Is there something wrong with me?

[Pandeeria]

I agree most with option three.

Having a hunting rifle or pistol is ok. Having a fully automatic assault rifle is not necessary.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I agree most with option three.

Having a hunting rifle or pistol is ok. Having a fully automatic assault rifle is not necessary.

Legally owned fully automatic assault rifles have killed two people since the 1960s (technically since the 1932 NFA, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since crime tracking back in the day wasn't as broad-based and deep as it is in the more modern era).
Provide a reason these are thus more problematic than pistols, which are used in 5-7 thousand homicides a year.

I agree most with option two.

[Pandeeria]

I agree most with option three.

Having a hunting rifle or pistol is ok. Having a fully automatic assault rifle is not necessary.

Legally owned fully automatic assault rifles have killed two people since the 1960s (technically since the 1932 NFA, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since crime tracking back in the day wasn't as broad-based and deep as it is in the more modern era).
Provide a reason these are thus more problematic than pistols, which are used in 5-7 thousand homicides a year.

I agree most with option two.

Just because they killed so few people does not mean we should permit them to the citizenry.

Pistols on the other hand are very efficient weapons for defending yourself. A fully automatic weapon is completely unnecessary , pistols on the other hand are not.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Legally owned fully automatic assault rifles have killed two people since the 1960s (technically since the 1932 NFA, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since crime tracking back in the day wasn't as broad-based and deep as it is in the more modern era).
Provide a reason these are thus more problematic than pistols, which are used in 5-7 thousand homicides a year.

I agree most with option two.

Just because they killed so few people does not mean we should permit them to the citizenry.

Right.
It just means there's no argument in favor of restricting them from the citizenry any further than they were prior to additional legislation in the late 80s (after which both of the aforementioned killings took place).

Pistols on the other hand are very efficient weapons for defending yourself.

And fully automatic assault rifles are very effective at having fun with.
With little noticeable and actively negligible impact on homicide statistics.

A fully automatic weapon is completely unnecessary , pistols on the other hand are not.

All firearms are unnecessary.
Pistols can be argued as good for defending oneself as to justify their availability despite a disproportionate impact in their usage in homicides.
Assault rifles can be argued as good for entertainment and novelty, with little need to justify since they have a negligible impact on homicides.

[Papal Republics]

People have the unequivocal right to own guns, per the Constitution. I'm fine with things like universal background checks, but nothing much beyond that. The difference between the relatively gun free societies of Europe and the pro-gun United States is that the former does not have a wide distribution of firearm ownership and strict regulation is already a given. To control guns in the United States (as demonstrated in many cities/states) would be ineffective and wouldn't address how easy it is to acquire a weapon in the shadows. What is needed instead is a well-trained and well-armed populace dedicated to upholding laws.

[Egoman]

2, please. I would move to America just for the guns.

[Egoman]

I agree most with option three.

Having a hunting rifle or pistol is ok. Having a fully automatic assault rifle is not necessary.

Sugar isn't necessary either. Let's ban everything with it in it.

[Bitva-Gwyddelig]

In my opinion I don't believe there shouldn't be any more gun control than a background check per firearm purchase with no license or a license with no background checks after the initial registration of the license. I certainly believe in liberties and the whole idea of restricting the working class, or anybody aside from horrifically violent criminals, from obtaining arms is suppression.

[Egoman]

In my opinion I don't believe there shouldn't be any more gun control than a background check per firearm purchase with no license or a license with no background checks after the initial registration of the license. I certainly believe in liberties and the whole idea of restricting the working class, or anybody aside from horrifically violent criminals, from obtaining arms is suppression.

Marx did say that thing about disarming the working class being bad.

[Fanosolia]

eh, I'm sorta neutral on the gun control debate but I have my opinions, which why I picked three.

Most of stuff you said to be honest. Safety training, licensing to those that complete the training, and a background. I would only go a little further in saying that it should be treated as something like a drivers test, so handgun class would be like driver's G class and other types go higher (which I just realized you sorta said too... oops.). I'll admit that might be my ignorance speaking since I've never even held one before and it might be already covered in the weekend course, but to me it would make sense that rifle is different than a pistol, and I would want to know that person knows how to handle the gun they own. From there on I'm sort of in the dark on the nitty gritty, like what to ban or the carry laws. I'm defiantly not the one to ask about that.

Also, Glad to see another fellow canadian here. I'm sort of curious, what specific laws we have on it? like I know we have pretty strict laws for this sort of thing, but I don't know the details.

[Skrovishte]

I'm probably 1,5. I'm too skeptical of the current state to support it regulating guns too much. Besides, murderers can find ways to get guns regardless of whether or not they're legal. In Croatia it's almost impossible to legally obtain guns, yet we still have many problems with violent crime (at least in the dark alleys of my neighbourhood...)

[Aelex]

Owning a weapon is the best way to increase violence. So, yeah; ban all those guns.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Owning a weapon is the best way to increase violence. So, yeah; ban all those guns.

I dunno, the areas in the US with some of the heaviest gun ownership don't tend to have very high crime rates.

[Rusozak]

Gun rights activists want to give everyone a gun so everyone can protect themselves, anti-gun activists want to take away guns so no one can hurt anyone, but both sides just skim the surface and fail to address the real issue: Why so many people decide to go shoot other people.

[Egoman]

Owning a weapon is the best way to increase violence. So, yeah; ban all those guns.

There's no connection between high gun ownership and high crime rates. Case and point, Switzerland.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Gun rights activists want to give everyone a gun so everyone can protect themselves, anti-gun activists want to take away guns so no one can hurt anyone, but both sides just skim the surface and fail to address the real issue: Why so many people decide to go shoot other people.

There's a lot of reasons someone could shoot another person.