[Poll] Gun control - How much?

[North Calaveras]

Ok, it would make sense if it was on the edge of your yard, but if it was in your house, you shouldn't be held responsible.

And that's what I'm saying. There are scenarios which should clearly be considered criminal negligence. And there are scenarios that shouldn't be considered negligence, that the owner shouldn't be faulted for. Where to draw the line between negligence and victimization is up for debate, but "The owner should be 100% faultless every time no matter what" is silly.

dosn't mattter if it's in your yard, it's your property, it's the criminals fault for taking it. There is no negligence when dealing with another adult who knows better than to steal, so no, the owner should not be charged with negligence.

[Migas999]

If I were American, which I am not, I would likely have voted for option 2. I understand many of the arguments behind their second amendment and I respect that.

However, I am British. We currently use option 4 for the most part and it works, so I voted for option 4. It probably wouldn't work in America, but it works for us.

I understand, although I have to defintly agree with option 2, citizens should be able to own firearms as well.

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

[North Calaveras]

I understand, although I have to defintly agree with option 2, citizens should be able to own firearms as well.

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

Why do we need cars designed to go past 100 MPH?

[Migas999]

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

Why do we need cars designed to go past 100 MPH?

Highways? You know I wanna travel and reach my destination before my next birthday

[Omega America II]

I understand, although I have to defintly agree with option 2, citizens should be able to own firearms as well.

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

Well, say you have an issue that requires something bigger than a normal pistol (which will most likely not happen). But, I do have to go with option 2, we need to have at least a firearm to defend ourselves.

[North Calaveras]

Why do we need cars designed to go past 100 MPH?

Highways? You know I wanna travel and reach my destination before my next birthday

...point is we make cars that are far faster than anything we need, and going far faster is incredibly dangerous.

[The Heart of Hypatia]

And that's what I'm saying. There are scenarios which should clearly be considered criminal negligence. And there are scenarios that shouldn't be considered negligence, that the owner shouldn't be faulted for. Where to draw the line between negligence and victimization is up for debate, but "The owner should be 100% faultless every time no matter what" is silly.

dosn't mattter if it's in your yard, it's your property, it's the criminals fault for taking it. There is no negligence when dealing with another adult who knows better than to steal, so no, the owner should not be charged with negligence.

This is pretty ridiculous. You're held responsible if you leave a fire unattended near inflammable materials, I checked and this seems to be the case in the USA as well, so why is it such a bad thing to hold someone responsible for leaving a firearm unattended? Just because you own it doesn't mean you can be an idiot with it.

[Migas999]

Going to pitch in here, I say option 2 is a bit to much in my opinion, I mean what need does an average citizen have for a machinegun?

Well, say you have an issue that requires something bigger than a normal pistol (which will most likely not happen). But, I do have to go with option 2, we need to have at least a firearm to defend ourselves.

Self defence yes, but you dont need a machinegun for that

[Omega America II]

Well, say you have an issue that requires something bigger than a normal pistol (which will most likely not happen). But, I do have to go with option 2, we need to have at least a firearm to defend ourselves.

Self defence yes, but you dont need a machinegun for that

Why not? I see no problem in having a machine gun.

[Migas999]

Highways? You know I wanna travel and reach my destination before my next birthday

...point is we make cars that are far faster than anything we need, and going far faster is incredibly dangerous.

Just as owning a machinegun is incredibly dangerous and should be regulated so that it´s harder for any maniac to get one

[North Calaveras]

dosn't mattter if it's in your yard, it's your property, it's the criminals fault for taking it. There is no negligence when dealing with another adult who knows better than to steal, so no, the owner should not be charged with negligence.

This is pretty ridiculous. You're held responsible if you leave a fire unattended near inflammable materials, I checked and this seems to be the case in the USA as well, so why is it such a bad thing to hold someone responsible for leaving a firearm unattended? Just because you own it doesn't mean you can be an idiot with it.

Just because something is a law dosn't make it right either.

[North Calaveras]

...point is we make cars that are far faster than anything we need, and going far faster is incredibly dangerous.

Just as owning a machinegun is incredibly dangerous and should be regulated so that it´s harder for any maniac to get one

oh my god here we go with the "there will be blood in the streets" arguement

[Migas999]

Self defence yes, but you dont need a machinegun for that

Why not? I see no problem in having a machine gun.

For one it is highly inpractical

(Spelling might be off, not english)

[Migas999]

Just as owning a machinegun is incredibly dangerous and should be regulated so that it´s harder for any maniac to get one

oh my god here we go with the "there will be blood in the streets" arguement

There might be, there might not be but shouldn´t we try to prevent it?

[The Heart of Hypatia]

This is pretty ridiculous. You're held responsible if you leave a fire unattended near inflammable materials, I checked and this seems to be the case in the USA as well, so why is it such a bad thing to hold someone responsible for leaving a firearm unattended? Just because you own it doesn't mean you can be an idiot with it.

Just because something is a law dosn't make it right either.

I never said it does, but some laws are common sense. In this case I feel it would make sense for the same reason it would make sense for someone to be held liable if they potentially allowed a fire to burn out of control on their property.

[North Calaveras]

oh my god here we go with the "there will be blood in the streets" arguement

There might be, there might not be but shouldn´t we try to prevent it?

there won't be

arizoan is a prime example of this and it's not the wild west there, so this whole " Things will be worse" is out of reality.

[Sevvania]

And that's what I'm saying. There are scenarios which should clearly be considered criminal negligence. And there are scenarios that shouldn't be considered negligence, that the owner shouldn't be faulted for. Where to draw the line between negligence and victimization is up for debate, but "The owner should be 100% faultless every time no matter what" is silly.

dosn't mattter if it's in your yard, it's your property, it's the criminals fault for taking it. There is no negligence when dealing with another adult who knows better than to steal, so no, the owner should not be charged with negligence.

"There's no negligence" except for the fact that you made it infinitely easier for the criminal to get their hands on it by outright refusing to exercise even the most basic precautions. You not only advertised the presence of an unsupervised weapon, you made its acquisition as simple as stepping off of the sidewalk to pick it up. Obviously the criminal should be charged as such. So should the owner, because their complete absence of responsibilty makes them a danger to those around them.

[North Calaveras]

Just because something is a law dosn't make it right either.

I never said it does, but some laws are common sense. In this case I feel it would make sense for the same reason it would make sense for someone to be held liable if they potentially allowed a fire to burn out of control on their property.

except stealing a gun and using it for criminal acts is far differen't than letting a fire get out of control, the criminal CHOSE to do something illegal.

[Migas999]

There might be, there might not be but shouldn´t we try to prevent it?

there won't be

arizoan is a prime example of this and it's not the wild west there, so this whole " Things will be worse" is out of reality.

You want to give a good example of gun responsibility use the Swiss not the US, how many shootings have there been in the US? Granted their not with a machine gun but still reinforces the point that gun controls are needed

[Omega America II]

Why not? I see no problem in having a machine gun.

For one it is highly inpractical

(Spelling might be off, not english)

You are right, a shotgun is better
(It's ok)

[North Calaveras]

dosn't mattter if it's in your yard, it's your property, it's the criminals fault for taking it. There is no negligence when dealing with another adult who knows better than to steal, so no, the owner should not be charged with negligence.

"There's no negligence" except for the fact that you made it infinitely easier for the criminal to get their hands on it by outright refusing to exercise even the most basic precautions. You not only advertised the presence of an unsupervised weapon, you made its acquisition as simple as stepping off of the sidewalk to pick it up. Obviously the criminal should be charged as such. So should the owner, because their complete absence of responsibilty makes them a danger to those around them.

I never said not to take precautions, I would never leave my rifle in a yard...but I wouldn't punish someone for it.

[Migas999]

For one it is highly inpractical

(Spelling might be off, not english)

You are right, a shotgun is better
(It's ok)

At least it´s a bit easier to conceal

[The Heart of Hypatia]

I never said it does, but some laws are common sense. In this case I feel it would make sense for the same reason it would make sense for someone to be held liable if they potentially allowed a fire to burn out of control on their property.

except stealing a gun and using it for criminal acts is far differen't than letting a fire get out of control, the criminal CHOSE to do something illegal.

The criminal should be dealt with also, and to a much higher degree, but to say the neglectful owner should not suffer any consequences for their stupidity is absurd. Every person I ever knew who owned a gun was serious about safety and personal responsibility for a good reason.

[Sevvania]

"There's no negligence" except for the fact that you made it infinitely easier for the criminal to get their hands on it by outright refusing to exercise even the most basic precautions. You not only advertised the presence of an unsupervised weapon, you made its acquisition as simple as stepping off of the sidewalk to pick it up. Obviously the criminal should be charged as such. So should the owner, because their complete absence of responsibilty makes them a danger to those around them.

I never said not to take precautions

Leaving your loaded rifle in the yard is refusing to take precautions.

Just as owning a machinegun is incredibly dangerous and should be regulated so that it´s harder for any maniac to get one

It already is, and that's why legally owned-full autos only account or two homicides over the course of the last seventy years or so, and illegally-owned use of full-autos is practically unheard of.

[North Calaveras]

there won't be

arizoan is a prime example of this and it's not the wild west there, so this whole " Things will be worse" is out of reality.

You want to give a good example of gun responsibility use the Swiss not the US, how many shootings have there been in the US? Granted their not with a machine gun but still reinforces the point that gun controls are needed

You understand that there are over 300 MILLION firearms in the united state don't you?

you understand that even if 1 million of those firearms were used in crime that's less than 1%

I'm not a math teacher but that's REALLY fucking LOW.