How do you feel about guns?

I don't have a gun... but my SO does... I don't like them, I think they are dangerous... I think it would be great to live in a world without guns, but if they were outlawed, only the criminals would have them.

From what I've seen and read in the media, the drawbacks of having guns in this society outweigh all benefits. I also believe the second amendment is outdated (and less importantly, misinterpreted). I have shot rifles and shotguns, so I'm not totally uniformed. But I'm sure gun enthusiasts could find a much more productive way to spend their time and energy. In my gun-free utopia, only police and rangers (who would use guns to control the animal population) would carry guns. In other words, no one would be allowed to have a gun merely for recreational use. A small price to pay considering all the lives that would be saved. Guns would also be so heavily controlled that criminals would have to forge the guns themselves if they really wanted them. However, the real challenge for criminals would be to get bullets, which are much more difficult to manufacture. Granted my ideal is simply an unattainable utopia, but some other countries do have lower homicide rates due to gun control.

Dolemite, what you see and read in the media (especially about guns) is mostly incorrect.

I agree with your first statement dolemite, but the drawbacks of taking away people's right to have guns is also worse than the benefit of not having them in society. You seem to have an underlying assumption that saving a lot of lives is a good thing, good enough to take away someone's rights to recreational gun use. If you think of a gun's purpose, it is only used "properly" (that is, to persuade or injure/kill someone) a very small percentage of its lifetime. The rest of the time it is being used "recreationally" - owner training, etc... if you take away recreational use you take away all use of a gun.

I don't mind people having guns as long as I get to decide who can and cannot have a gun.

I don't like guns and I don't like anyone else having guns. But I'll have to live with it.

Funny survey(or am I just really tired?)!
I own one and like them. I'm not into guns as a hobby anymore but I like the security I feel having a gun in my home. I also realize the awesome responsibility I have as a gun owner.

the second amendment is way out of date, national defense doesn't require hand guns, and letting assault weapons be legal for anyone is completely nuts. if you ask me owning one is a statement that you support people killing each other. my folks are ranchers and hunters, and i think thats a seperate issue. Countrys with no guns have a much lower homicide rate, and i believe that people in home self defense fare worse on the average than those who do not defend themself with a gun. me, i live in whats almost a slum and don't even lock my apartment door, i even forget to lock my bike most of the time, because i have faith. probably most recreational gun use is done with the thought of practicing to kill, or maybe even lustful power fantasies of killing or destroying things, otherwise why don't they take up archery or tight-rope walking or something a bit more challenging. I welcome a debate if anyone thinks otherwise, but to repeat myself, guns mean a vote for death and destruction, something i don't think belongs as a persons right as a citizen. Who wrote this survey anyhow. What are you afraid of?

I think we should outlaw automobiles too, just think of the lives that will be saved!

"In case you didn't know, I am being sarcastic" -Homer S.

Dolemite wrote this survey, what makes you think he's afraid of something? We should outlaw streets too - a lot of people that die on the streets aren't even in cars.

i totally agree with you guys, that's why i submit plans to the metro authority to route the busses like trains on certain boulevards, and turn the others into community parks or collective farms.

**Jasmine: The US has a higher rate of homicides committed without guns than just about every other industrialized country (except the UK) has overall. Out of the two countries with the lowest overall homicide rate, one has nearly the lowest rate of gun ownership and one the highest. The UK now has a higher rate than the US of every violent crime, except for homicide, and if current trends continue even that won't be higher for more than a decade. The correlation that you seek just isn't there.

I wish everyone would stop paying attention to "the news", and instead base their beliefs on what they've experienced first-hand in their own lives.

Bill: are the lies people tell themselves that much different from the lies the media tells them? Arguments like this are not based on reason and facts, they are based on emotion and personal phobias. People who advocate guns do so because they don't feel safe without one; people who advocate no guns do so because they don't feel safe with them in the world.

It's a bit late to try to ban guns in the US. The law couldn't possibly be enforced. It seems much wiser to have very strict penalties for people who use a gun to commit a crime. Take their guns away, but don't punish me for what others have done. I want to be able to protect myself if one of them tries to commit a crime against me.

Can any of you who feel guns should be banned explain to me how all the existing guns would be collected? How would people be prevented from manufacturing or importing more? How much would this attempt cost us as taxpayers, and how effective would it be?

Our government can't even stop illegal drugs. It seems there must be a lot more guns floating around than drugs. What a farce that would be! Innocent citizens who have never committed a crime other than insisting on their right to own a gun would end up in trouble with the law, while the real criminals were still running around terrorizing people. Let's put our efforts where they'll do some good.

"the KKK took my baby awaaay!"
"they took 'er awaaay!"
"away from MEEeeeeeeEEE!!"

SueBee: I don't know where you are but you should stay out of MA. We are currently fighting some terrible gun laws.

**SueBee: California seems to have a good strategy: Drum up public ire against a small subset of guns. Require registration of said group. Confiscate said group. Lather, rinse, repeat. By most accounts it's a very effective way of removing guns from those people who register them.

SueBee: good words! perhaps what the U.S. needs is a "War on Guns" (not) - perhaps the absurdity would wake us up to the reality.

drdt: words are powerful, words bend minds and shape feelings. My impression is that most of the people who don't feel safe because of guns, get those feelings from the media. The media focuses on news which evokes an emotional response in the viewer/reader because that's what gets and keeps their audience. Fear is the most common emotion they seem to be after, I suspect it is one of the easiest to evoke. Hate being a close second. Guns are an easy target, as are drugs.

What did people use to harm/maim/threaten/kill each other before the gun was invented?

These are the same things/methods that would flourish again and top the list if guns were outlawed/abolished/confiscated/melted down.

In fact, I feel that if all weapons were/could be removed from our "civilized" society...someone better start chopping off people's hands and anyone with martial arts training should have to register their bodies.

HA!

Eclectic options. I wouldn't go so far as "never".

Fear is the mind killer.

I'm in Washington state, Hillbilly, and we've had our share of battles over firearm legislation. Is it true that MA lawmakers are now trying to ban guns that can be fired by children? That's sneaky! Talk about fear tactics! Lawmakers as well as the media, Bill, try to scare people into wanting to ban guns.

Daver - I don't think it's just California that's started with one type of guns (assault weapons or "Saturday night specials" --both loosely defined to begin with) and tried to ban them one by one. Another sneaky tactic.

It would be so easy to ban guns and harmful drugs, except who do you think supports them? The enemy is within, it's like planned parenthood or hepatitis.
** daver - that's a bummer to hear, but i believe it.
**bill - my opinions and life experiences stay with me even if my world history was wrong. I saw my brother get a gun, then get threatened with gunfire 2 days later, doesn't that tell you something?
**jaff - we can do the rock to rock-away beach..

Jamsine - my experience with guns comes from talking to responsible owners. My boss at work is a rifle instructor. His thoughtful, rational, and unemotional words on the subject of gun ownership helped me to understand the situation. It would be wrong to take away his right to own and use guns. Sure there are irresponsible people who get their hands on guns, but I don't think punishing the responsible people for that makes sense.
My impression from the experience of your brother that you have related is that the problem there lies more in the people who threatened your brother and/or your brother himself than it does with gun ownership.
The bottom line for me is that I don't want our government to legislate away the need to be responsible. I think it is wrong for the government to solve the problem of its citizens being irresponsible by taking away their rights. I wish instead that our government would creates laws and/or social programs that motivate us to become more responsible.

sick metal masturbation. like car talk or something with a cloud of volatile lead attached. I love the things: wheel-locks, Gatling guns, you name it, as I love a good clockwork. What I have little patience for is people intrigued by killing each other. Even as a fascination of fearful self-defense. Move on people.

Bill - Yes!! I'm all for trying to improve things with positive actions (mainly education) rather than the negative of taking away everyone's rights in an attempt to keep us all safe. There should be more programs in schools to reach out to kids who aren't getting the attention they need at home, to provide positive role models and lead kids away from violence. I think that would help our society far more than wasting time and money trying to get rid of all the guns.

I didn't think anyone was going to have anything useful to say here.
sb: wonderful idea, but is it really easier to counteract an entire audio/visual culture that glorifies violence. seems to me that even teaching common sense in gun ownership couldn't begin to counteract sensationalism mistaken for reality; but yes, we should try.
People who live in high crime areas, i've found, have never had a brighter point of reference; for instance they litter because they have never even seen clean streets, don't visit nature because that only exists on tv, not in real life.
I would support children's camps that equate to a grand society lifestyle version of ca,usa Governor Jerry Brown's bussing project that got kids experiencing other lifestyles. I've seen the poorest of education, and neighbor parents working desperately hard failing to get their kids in better schools, while on my commute to work, i'm surrounded by 6th graders, who have been taught far more college prep than the neighbors would get in a lifetime. The U.S. is not that free a country. People are born in 'castes' here which are difficult to overcome.

difficult...but not impossible....

KR - I'm not talking about teaching gun safety. I'm suggesting an entire curriculum that would help kids with their self esteem and get them excited about doing something positive with their lives. There are some good programs in place. I think being involved with sports and that sort of thing helps a lot of kids. But there are too many that fall through the cracks. If Americans were willing to spend more on schools I think a lot more good could be done which would keep more people from turning to a life of violence and crime. I don't think it'll ever be eliminated completely, but I think there could be a big improvement.

Work place day care with some time share parenting would be a start, somewhat like the kibbutz system of israel. Parent's need more involvement with children; Children need a variety of fresh energy.

Or how about refraining from procreating until you or your spouse can afford to stay home and raise said progeny. That would be a start.

I firmly believe that myself. 4/5 jobs (at least in LA) are 'make work' jobs like security, legal defense, entertainment, or technology escalation. If we could talk society out of this stuff, theoretically, we could resume the buying power we had in the 60's. When I was 24, I had almost the identical job as my father; my spouse and i could barely afford to take out pizzas; in contrast my father owned a ski boat, house, and camper at that age.

Suebee: They want guns to have a 30 pound trigger pull or grip squeeze of equal force. They also want all those thumb print identifiers and magnetic rings.

ATM machines can identify passer-bys from 6 feet away, through sunglasses by their cornea prints. This being public technology, must allude to other capabilities 20 years more advanced. One must almost conclude that the government wants loose hand guns, or our political leaders have also reached an understanding that karma takes care of these things.

bill: it was a karma of thought thing i was trying to illustrate. Someone ought to make a survey that distinguishes acceptance of hand guns, rifles, automatic weapons, concealed, and out of the house. But not me.

Hillbilly - "Guns that can be fired by children" sounded like pretty much any gun to me. Thanks for clarifying that. I don't really know if there are good arguments against the 30 pound trigger pull besides the fact that it takes away the right of even single people without children in their household to own whatever gun they want. Doesn't seem fair to hobbyists or any responsible gun owners. It's a shame our government feels the need to make more stringent laws just because some people have no sense. I haven't heard about the thumb prints and magnetic rings...I guess I have some research to do.

SueBee- are you perhaps generalizing as well that individual's should not have to make sacrifices for the benefit of society in general?

**SueBee: Do a search for magna-trigger. Brief synopsis: Works in a handful of S&W revolvers; requires a ring on the shooting hand; all rings unlock all magna-triggers; costs about the same as the gun. It's been around for about 25 years.

SueBee, the argument against a 30lb trigger is fairly straightforward. Despite what you hear on evening news, there are many purposes of guns -- target shooting, hunting, plinking -- but self protection is the big one. What all these require is accuracy. A 30lb trigger pull would make the gun very inaccurate because very few people could hold it steady while pulling that hard with one finger. Most people, I suspect, wouldn't be able to at all. Therefore, only the strongest would be able to use guns and, quite bluntly, the strongest aren't the ones who need the most protection. We might as well just go back to a time of no guns, where the strong bludgeon the weak into submission and silence.

Or the biggest lawyer. We still live in a 'champion' system.
A device like a wireless automotive door lock would help.

Daver - Thanks, I'll check that out.

Jasmine - How would it benefit society in general for a person who collects guns as a hobby, and has no children, to have to give up all his guns, or have them modified to comply with new gun laws? That type of legislation is trying to save people and their children from their own stupidity. Let's not punish the smart, responsible gun owners.

dab - In other words, by making the guns less accurate, they will be less safe. Great legislation - not! Wouldn't it make more sense to require people with children in their homes to make sure their guns are locked away?

Ever hear of guns being stolen, etc. If all guns manufactured required a combination unique to the owner, at least we would cut down on numerous accidents, murders with unregistered handguns, and be able to more easily make claims as to who fired a weapon. Is there anthing wrong with all that?

SueBee, it would only make sense to lock guns away if you're not ever going to need them for protection. Given that though, I figure guns should either be in your immediate control or locked away whether or not you have kids (friends might visit with their kids). Yeah, my grandfather and father always had guns around just tucked away in the back of the closet and it was never a problem. But kids are curious and there will be some small rate of tragedy that way which is just too easy to prevent.

By locked away I do NOT mean trigger locks. Those things are unsafe.

Jasmine, there are lots of things wrong with your proposal, at least with any means I've heard of to implement it. Without needing to get into specifics, just look at it this way. Guns are used to save lives far more often than to take them (easily verifiable if you care to look). If you make guns harder to use and it affects both good and bad uses equally, the result is more lives lost than saved. Given that self defense is much more likely to be an "oh crap, I have to do something now, hurry" sort of thing while attackers have the benefit of being able to have everything in place before attacking, these sorts of things will proportionally interfere with defensive uses to a greater extent than attacks. They would probably help with accidents but it turns out that accidents, while horribly tragic, are fortunately rather rare and better dealt with through education.

*bang*     *bang* *bang* *bang*
where' them floozy nitrous cartridges, this thing don't shoot.
absurd
My great-uncle was full of shot, as were his deer, i got by with a bb stuck near my eye fired from an empty rifle.
My second beer's tequila flavored. ymm swett and skunky like a holland pilsner. But nothing competes with a copper ale, and it's open fermentation in belgium air. If this is Liechtenstein, this must be tuesday. oh, i need my harem sisters now.

Crazy Americans, the lot of you. I live in a society strikingly similar to yours, but I have never seen a gun in my life (except those which the police carry), never witnessed any crime involving a gun, never known anyone who perpetrated a crime with a gun or was the victim of a crime which involved a gun gun or ever felt the need to worry about guns or the need 'to protect myself'.

Its so interesting to see the repeated arguments. Tell me, exactly how do you measure the effectiveness of guns as a defensive weapon? How do you measure how well it 'protects you'? Interesting enough one can easily identify the effectiveness of it as a tool for murder; just start counting the bodies. Evidence versus theory.

**North79: You measure the effectiveness by comparing how likely someone is to survive an attack by using various tactics, such as using a gun, running, cooperating, or using pepper spray. That's only half the picture, though.
By the way, I'm a crazy scot, not an american. Welcome back!

I live in the United State and have only seen a few guns in my life. Every case has been someone showing me their possession ("hey look at this"). I've never witnessed a crime involving a gun, never known anyone who perpetrated a crime with a gun (I can't say about the knowing a victim - I haven't ask everyone one, but I can't recall anyone mentioning it). Guns are something I see on the news or in movies, but rarely in real life. I heard that a guy robbed a sandwich shop near my home recently with a knife. I rarely worry about protecting myself. I've never seriously considered buying a gun for self protection.
But yet I don't feel the need to take away the rights of others to own and use guns.
I respect their right to be responsible.
Welcome back, North79!

Thanks for not forgetting me guys! =p I suppose I should now defend my rant..

Daver, how are such statistics compiled? You cannot hold a controlled experiment with such controlled variables, for obvious reasons. (ie people would die). Additionally, the argument by the pro-gun lobby that in the place of firearms that 'other' means of killing would simply be employed in the place of guns, as effectively, insinuates that anything else is an equally effective weapon. Therefore, anything else should also be an equally effective form of defense.

bill...while I can understand that you respect the rights of others to own and use guns, I would argue that I feel it infringed on MY rights..to not have to suffer the consequences of their misuse. The good of those who abstain from something should not be punished by those who choose to participate..for example, non-smokers are punished when they are forced to inhale second hand smoke. Their right to not be 'poisoned'is infringed upon. This is why (up here, anyways) the restrictions on where you can smoke are becoming more and more numerous.

**North79: From compiling police reports. As I've mentioned in numerous previous surveys, the FBI does exactly that: tracking every assault, robbery, rape, murder, etc. that is recorded by any US police department. Obviously, this will tend to somewhat under-represent successful defenses since they may never come to the notice of the police. The US Department of Justice has attempted to come up with a better estimate of the number of times guns are used defensively each year; the researchers in question expressed doubts about the estimates published by various criminologists (between 1 and 2.5 million defensive uses per year). The DOJ study came up with a lower bound of 1.5 million.
Weapons that are equally effective (or nearly so) for an attacker may not be so for a defender. The attacker has the dual advantages of surprise and preparation; they can more easily use non-concealable weapons and weapons that require more preparation to use. The defender's weapon must be easy to carry and quick to deploy to be useful.
In any event, while these statistics may shed some light on the subject, there's an even easier way to tell: look at countries that have changed their laws on guns and see what happens to their rates of violent crime.
Violent crime is falling is the US despite the fact that ownership of guns is up. If you look at it on a state by state basis, states with the largest increases in gun ownership have the greatest decreases in violent crime.
Crime is on the rise in the UK and ownership of guns is down. When the UK enacted their most recent gun ban, the rate of increase of violent crime (which had been constant for the previous decade) tripled and has stayed that way ever since. You are now more likely to be a victim any violent crime except murder in the UK as opposed to the US. If current trends continue, the UK will be a more dangerous society in all respects (including murder) within a few years.
Violent crime is on the rise in Australia. When the Australians enacted their most recent gun ban, the following year saw a reversal of the 25 year drop in violent crime.
How is Canada doing? If they're experiencing a drop in both guns and violent crime, you might be one for four.

**daver

I don't off the top of my head have any more recent crime statistics than I did six months ago, so I will have to get back to you on the numbers. I would however like to see the numbers for the US, UK and Australia if you can tell me where to find them. Being a student in statistics I would be interested to see the way in which they are presented..and more importantly whether or not the facts are that simple.

If the FBI tracks every occurrence of violent crime, how does this translate into tracking successful defenses of person with a weapon?
Also, how do we know if at any given occurrence, a person would be better or worse off with or without a weapon? How do we define what is a successful defense versus an unsuccessful one? How do we know that, for example, a victim of a crime who was killed by a gun, was shot by the attacker only because her or she had a gun, forcing the attacker to kill or risk being killed him or herself? I would argue that that particular scenario is highly realistic. Most of the time guns are used only as a threat. If the attacker feels threatened they may more prone to use it.

I find your weapons argument illogical as well. Obviously the attacker has the advantage of surprise. If a gun is already trained on someone, what does it matter whether they have a gun to defend themselves with or not? Unless the attacker is an idiot, he would shoot you the second you motioned to even pull a firearm. And if he is an idiot, you won't need a gun to disarm him.

You also argue that the attacker has the advantage of preparation. Does one not need to be properly trained on a firearm in order for it to serve as an effective weapon? Also, I don't see how a knife, a blade, a rock..would be any more cumbersome to carry or slow to deploy than a gun. They also require much less (or no) training to use.

For the record, what are the violent crime rates for the UK, USA and Australia in recent years? You argue that the UK and Australian rates have risen in spite of tighter gun control; are they now on par with the US or still lower? Those are the numbers that matter. (ie if the UK numbers 'tripling' were 6 to 18 and US number dropping were 60 to 50, who is still worse off?).

Your last point I find very interesting. What if, in fact, Canada does indeed have tighter gun laws and a falling violent crime rate?
Would that then prove that there is no correlation between tight guns laws and rising violent crime? One in a hundred is not very significant. One in four is.

Which wanker invented guns in the first place! Why didn't governments reunite together and completly terminate any kind of distribution. If gun manufacturers were outlawed, they wouldn't have survive. If cigarettes were suddenly invented and the governamnt banned them, the companies would drop dead.Why didn't this happen with guns!!!

SEVEN: Comment number 4

So,you think the drawbacks of banning guns outweighs the benefits of not having them in society, do you. And you think saving people's lives is not as important as people's right to use guns, eh! Well, in my ideal life, your rules would apply and I would hire someone to gun down your family!!!!!!

Nothing wrong with that, my right to use a gun is far more important than your family!!

Wicksy: "If cigarettes were suddenly invented and the government banned them, the companies would drop dead. Why didn't this happen with guns!!!"

Why didn't it happen with cigarettes?

Geez, Wicksy, don't have a cow, man! Just because a person believes we should be allowed to own guns doesn't mean anybody should be allowed to shoot someone else. We need to put our collective energy toward making people more compassionate and caring so there would be less violence, not trying to ban everything a person could use to hurt another person. Also, people need to be able to discuss their differing opinions without getting violent. Although I suppose you were just trying to prove a point.

Suebee: No, I wasn't proving a point, I was just responding to seven's comments!!

drdt: Because the health risks weren't known back then!!

Wicksy: "the wanker that invented guns in the first place" was the government (sorta... :))

Wicksy: guns weren't nearly so dangerous back then, either.

Gun control isn't a big issue for me. As long as they aren't pointing at me or my loved ones, I generally don't think about them much.

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "peachy keen." I'm pretty sure someone has probably pointed this out already, but what the hey.

I kind of like peachy king. :)

People should be able to have a gun to protect themselves.
Liquor store clerks should be allowed to keep a gun in the till.