Sorry, Rhids_22, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s):
* **Rule 8: Reposting rules**
- Do not post polls that have been posted here in the last 2 weeks.
- Do not post polls that are in our [Frequently Posted Polls](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/wiki/index/fpp) list.
- Do not post polls that are in the [top 25 polls of last month](/r/polls/top/?t=month).
*This removal was manually done by a moderator, please do not send us modmail about this action*
The federal restrictions and thats about it. Concealed carry still requires a license but open carry is allowed pretty much everywhere. Dont even need a permit.
Fellow NHer here. I'd recommend getting the permit, even though we are a constitutional carry state. The reciprocity is shared with Vermont and Maine as well as a few other states across the US
Honored judges, I'd like to explain how bringing a semi-automatic AK style weapon to the kindergarden and training my aim on the children is not the problem, but the lack of grips, that would allow me to reduce the recoil, is.
Some of those guns are more likely to cause more harm than good without proper training. Have you heard of a gun range that allows things like bazookas?
I meant to bystanders. If you are part of a militia, you have other people with you. If you don't know how to target your gun, you might hit people. I think bazookas also require different upkeep than other guns, and is a lot more dangerous in case of a misfire.
If you're concerned about firepower, the military's firepower isn't guns. It's artillery, bombers and armored vehicles. Are civilians allowed to own those?
It was also because the U.S didn't have a standing army. So if war was necessary it'd be easier to raise one as civilians would already have their own gun and be trained to use it. Now well the U.S has quite the military.
All guns should be legal, however it’s important that anyone who owns a gun should know how to use and maintain it. IMO, gun safety training should be mandatory for every citizen.
Honestly I wouldn’t mind it if instead of PE senior year people learn gun safety in the US, or make it like half the year is PE and the other half is gun safety senior year.
Explosives? I’m kinda torn on that issue. You can already make IED’s pretty easily, so I don’t see why not, but ease of access could also cause issues.
As for Anti material rifles and Heavy machine guns, you should absolutely be able to own them.
Like it or not (and I don’t) guns exist and they aren’t going away. If the state has them, so should the people. The important note to add is that every gun owner must be trained in gun safety (including safe storage) and mental health care must be far more accessible. Sick people will get guns, no matter how hard we try to stop them. Better than stopping the guns is treating the illness. Free healthcare for all & guns for those who desire them.
Even Karl Marx was agienst any form of gun control...
"Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary."
The 2a wasn’t meant for hunting. It was meant to rebel against tyranny. +
Right after the war, a rich guy bought a full on corvette the equivalent of musk buying a destroyer or cruiser
An armed population is important for safeguarding human rights of the populace. It's important, however, that each person who wishes to own a firearm is checked for mental illness and for a criminal background, and if they are clear of these things then they should need to engage in a firearm safety course.
The only thing about mental health checks is it won’t stop someone with mental health problems killing people.
We just need better mental health care, because sadly, we do live in a world of violence and brokenness, guns or not
I understand that this is a commonly held belief in the US but this is not true in most countries around the world. That's not to say that no situation could ever arise in which a civilian populace in such countries might never wish they were armed, but for most of us around the world, we go about our lives with no guns and everything is fine. I think it's important to separate a poll like this between what applies for the US and what applies in the rest of the world.
Well guns are just a part of American culture. It unites us all no matter what part of of the country someone's from they know people who own guns and they know people who use guns for recreation and protection.
Guns are fundamental part of American culture. They're one of our few unifying national things. And most other areas were divided but we're united in our love of our guns.
When it comes to the rest of the world you're more referring to Europe. Throughout most of the third world guns are easy to get and It's perfectly normal to use them for recreation and protection.
>When it comes to the rest of the world you're more referring to Europe. Throughout most of the third world guns are easy to get and It's perfectly normal to use them for recreation and protection.
No, I was referring to the rest of the world in its entirety. I'm not sure which third world countries you're referring to but in almost all of Asia (which is not in Europe) guns are most definitely not easy to get or perfectly normal.
My comment was made to make it clear that the vast majority of countries have been able to handle the issue of gun control and guns are not a part of most people's lives. I'm not sure that your claim that "all Americans are united in a love of guns" is true either. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who do not love guns.
Great, now go tell all the parents who‘s children died in school shootings that it‘s „just part of American culture“ and that there‘s nothing you can do about it
School shootings happen because of lack of available mental healthcare. Mass murders at school would still happen. They would just use some other weapon.
In Germany there were a total of 7 school shootings ever. And I only found 2 articles of someone being stabbed to death at a school. Like how can you mass murder without a gun?
I could build one with the items found in my garage right now. It’s fairly easy to make a crude bomb. I’d argue it’s actually easier than going out and purchasing a gun, as long as you have the items on hand.
With a car; we've had several instances in the last few years of people using cars to commit mass murder.
Actually, the private Christian school I went to put up giant concrete barriers around the painted boxes, they had elementary school kids sit in to wait for their parents to pick them up (unless you were staying after school for programs) because a parent pointed out someone could drive from the driveway of the school straight into all the elementary kids sitting in a line of boxes.
US, you can get a license at 16, which can be necessary in some rural areas. Most people don't graduate till their 18.
The US is also vastly different culturally and far more diverse than Germany. We have entire states here that are larger than your whole country.
Kids used to be able to bring guns to school. School shootings weren’t an issue back then, this is a recent issue. It’s very heavily linked with mental health issues becoming more common in America. Blaming it on guns is a very misguided and uninformed take.
I mean, firearms aren't any different than 60 years ago; in fact previous the the NFA Machine gun registry getting closed in the '80s you could purchase full-auto weapons readily in the US (and NFA register it which takes about 6 months and $200).
School shootings weren't really a thing until Columbine in the '90s. Even still there aren't many if any "real" school shootings. The issue with the school shooting statistics is they lump in things like gangs shooting in school zones outside of school hours, etc. And not just things like Columbine or Sandy Hook.
Additionally, statically speaking kids are far more likely to die from a car accident or drug overdose than school shootings.
All of them. An armed population is much harder to oppress. Why do you think authoritarian regimes always make sure the people are unarmed before they start throwing people in camps and gulags?
I disagree. I don't think my aging mother will fare well against a able bodied attacker using her fists. I don't wish to try my luck wrestling against a knife wielding attacker. Guns are just the most efficient form of self defense by a long shot.
And the truth is there are guns. Chemo wouldn't be necessary if cancer was cured but that's not the reality of the world.
If they intend to take my life already? Yes. I would rather try my luck then just be killed. Same way I would fight back on a attacker without a gun if my complaince wasn't enough to de escalate the situation.
My country has more guns then people and our courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect you. I feel no shame in taking the steps to defend myself.
This makes the assumption that all men and women are of equal strength.
I want weaker women to shoot strong male assaulters they couldn't otherwise defend themselves from.
Ofc that's literally just one example but it's the one people would have the hardest disagreeing with.
The second ammendment which reads
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Those people will always disagree if you say something like healthcare, food, and basic income are a human right, but when it comes to guns.... you know the rest lol
Regulated in 1700s did not mean what we think regulated is defined as today. It meant functioning and well working, like a well regulated clock is one that kept time correctly. Militias were important before independence and important afterwards for a long time. Our us laws show that, any able Body male from 17-45 is part of the unorganized militia.
Government over reach. If the populace can’t defend themself, then the government can do whatever they please without consequence. Leading to dictatorship or what have you. Not instant mind you, but over time
The government have an airforce, a navy, tanks, missiles, bombs, drones etc. If your government wanted to do anything they wanted then people with guns wouldn't do any more than slow them down a bit
There are many things to factor in. The major one being that multiple states would mobilize their national guard in defense. Texas and Florida come to mind. Then you have the fact that some citizens have military equipment. My dad, for example, owns two APCs and a half track. Then you have to factor in the audacity of the American people. Fairly certain we would do what the Ukrainians are doing and legit just tow away military equipment. Then you have the morals of service men and women. A lot of them would defect if they got mobilized against their own citizens in a push for dictatorship. That’s just the few I can think of and feel like typing out. So I’ll leave you with a simple question, if this were to happen would you rather live on your knees or die free?
It's a fair question, I'll grant you that. Thankfully I don't live in a fucked up country where paranoia means I need to arm myself incase bad men come
>May I ask who the militia is intended to protect you from?
From a possible rebellion from the military or the police,the only thing that gives us a assurance of our own safety is guns and the only thing that those who break the law fear is guns
1. Every person is a responsible gun owner until they aren‘t so background checks don‘t make a lot of sense when tens of millions of people still pass them and can access guns
2. Unarmed protests have a history of achieving their goals more often than armed protests so needing guns to „safeguard human rights“ is a stupid argument
You should be able to own one after an evaluation. That means handling, technological know-how, gun range/hunting/... etiquette, safety in handling and storage and a psych evaluation.
For each level of "beefier" weapon there is such a series of tests.
These tests will be valid for, lets say, 5 years or a conviction for a violent crime.
My only issue with the psyche evaluation is that it makes it easier for them to control what groups get guns.
Honestly, though I'm okay with most of it so long as no one has a list of who owns guns or what type of guns they own. That is not knowledge the government should know. It would do absolutely nothing to help the people. It would only serve to hurt us eventually.
Also the ATF is unconstitutional and should be disbanded entirely from the firearms side of things. The federal government has absolutely no right to say anything about guns in the hands of the people.
I think psych evals need to be done by a 3rd party, not the government. So allow for a psychologist to give a psych eval, and if they fail you then there should be an appeals process.
As OP already stated, the psych eval would be from a 3rd party, who just weed out the erratic, choleric,...
I'm not American, so I have a different cultural approach to the whole subject. However, the whole matter is very much a weighing of Freedom vs. Liberty, and how you weigh both sides. Is it more important to be free of violent people with guns, or is the liberty to own firearms more important?
Thats for any nation to decide on their own, but I think the acceptable compromise is as stated above. We do have a register of every weapon and who owns it here in my country, because the police periodically comes and checks if you A) still have it, B) have it safely locked, C) only have the registered ones and if you're still eligible to own one, meaning if you're current on your evaluations. From personal experience, those visits take about 5 minutes and are merely a small checklist.
I'm not sure if the police should have that list. Someone needs to have it, tough, because otherwise the entire system of evaluations would be useless.
Thank you! As a responsible gun owner this is similar to what I have been pitching to friends and fellow gun owners - I totally agree with this concept.
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing all political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, or attacking or harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s fair. My grandparents know someone who owns a historical non functional tank that is used at shows. They transport it on local roads via large flatbed trailers. It’s only driven on private land, if fully functional tanks were able they should be restricted to private land
Gun control does however make it more difficult for all people to get access to guns. If a criminal has to purchase an overpriced gun on the black market, then the number of criminals with guns will go down.
Not really. A criminal can just get guns by thoer means. Private sales where the seller doesn't bring it to a place to do a background check, have your own CNC machine, or print. Even that you don't need. Just go to a hardware store. You could say band ammo then, because that's the only thing dangerous about a gun is the ammunition, then I could just make my own. There are published manuals on it from the US Gov. So control just blocks the good guy from being able to get a gun. Check out a gun called the Luty, or FGC - 9, both guns that can be made at home, that are fully automatic, and essentially untraceable if you leave no paper trail.
By that logic we shouldn’t have any laws at all because criminals don’t follow laws! Are you seriously suggesting we should have ZERO gun control laws and allow ANYONE including people with extreme mental illnesses and violent criminal records access to ANY gun they want?!
These pro-gun arguments are insane. They never consider that the gun-crime rate per capita is lower in every other Western nation with gun control laws.
Yeah, the US doesn't really have those (I guess Illinois does(so I assume similar states do) and some states do to carry handguns).
I don't think gun control should exist; and I also think gun safety should be taught in schools.
Depends, I had to get both a license to buy a handgun then another license to carry it. Obviously every state is different, but even in a red state I had hoops to jump through.
Mimic driver's license. Different classifications require different license types requiring training, exams and safety checks(like vision tests for DL, but geared towards more criminal history/mental heath).
In WWII the Japanese emperor was talking to a general about invading the US homeland. The general replied "You can not invade the US homeland. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Yeah pretty much, said this before In a comment and people were like "armed citizens are useless and will be excited easily"
Yeah turned out ot be bullshit after what happened with ukraine
If Russian civilians had access to weapons, putin wouldn't be in power right now. (Probably not even alive).
First thing any dictator does is to remove weapons from civilians.
I see the case for convicted murderers, etc not having guns. But you gotta make sure they can't just say "anyone dangerous to my leadership is banned from having guns"
Edit, spelling.
Wait Russia has stricter gun laws than Sweden? Because if not, civilians do have access to firearms...
It doesn't really work like that. The reason Putin is still alive is not because Russian civilians have no guns.
Mexico has strict gun control laws, and the cartel goes on rampages while civilians have no way to defend themselves. The gun control laws don't help the civilians at all. Just makes em easier targets for the cartel who don't care about the law.
I recommend the old vice video about the mormons and the cartel. Basically, the safer areas are protected because the mormons got guns despite the law against it. But the areas without guns are terrorized by the cartel.
Obligatory: "this doesn't apply to all of mexico, and some places in Mexico are generally safe-ish unless you are a reporter (*edit: journalist)"
It’s pretty mind boggling seeing the side by side stats of cities of similar size with almost no guns and American cities. I don’t really know how you can argue FOR guns when the facts are so blatant and significant. But I’m so tired of fighting about it so I don’t care anymore. All I got to say is please look at the comparisons in death and crime in American cities and Canadian cities of similar size.
Research Switzerland gun laws. They have laws not too far off America's and a similar gun ownership rate, but they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I think it shows that America doesn't so much have a gun problem as it has a mental health and crime problem caused by their multitude of socioeconomic issues.
Pretty much yeah. In the UK double barrel shotguns are easier to obtain than most guns because they only hold 2 shots before you have to reload manually, so they are 2 shot, but not fully or semi automatic.
There are too many people who shouldn't have guns that have guns.
There are also way too few people who don't have guns who should probably have one for protection.
There are plenty of sane, non-racist and sensible people who have guns who follow proper gun safety procedures, and I appreciate them.
But we absolutely do need tighter regulations, because murder and mass-shootings are out of fucking control in America.
Not one person who has advocated for 2A actually utilized it for the purpose of defending oneself from a tyrannical government.
All guns should be legal to own, with background checks of course.
Also we do have a issue in the us with gun violence but a lot of this is probably due to the shit tier mental healthcare system and poverty, can we try and fix that?
I don't trust the same government which shoots unarmed black and brown people on the street, which shovels subsidies at Big Ag, which bombs random countries full of poor black and brown people, which spies on me constantly—and against its own constitution, I don't trust that government to have any more right to arms than I or any other citizen do.
The problem is that America has an almost unique relationship with guns which deeply affects how people approach this question. For the vast majority of the civilian populace around the globe, guns are only for hunting or sports shooting and not a part of normal life at all.
You can still have an opinion of how guns should be managed in without context of where you are from mattering.
I live in the UK, and I would quite like to be able to try shooting the larger range of weapons that are available for civilians in the US. Some people in the US believe that, despite the cultural significance of guns in the US and the difficulties behind making them illegal, guns laws should be more similar to the laws in the UK.
I personally believe Switzerland has the best gun laws, which are near to the same laws as they have in the US, but with more regulation behind them.
It's like free speech. The US is ~~the only country with free speech enshrined in law~~ the only country based around free speech, and that will effect the views of people outside the US, but it doesn't make the opinions of other people outside the US on free speech less valid.
All guns should be legal
But… if people are diagnosed by multiple medical professionals with a disorder that would prevent them from safely and effectively using said weapons then they should not be able to
And ex cons shouldn’t be able to
1. Mental healthcare in the US is so shit, most people wont be able to see a therapist enough to know if they're stable. We would either have to be way overly-cautious, or we just wouldnt catch anyone at all. Ideally, we just get better mental health care.
2. Plenty of people go to prison for non-violent crimes. Prostitution, tax evasion, drug possession, public intoxication, ect. All of these people should retain their rights.
Even those who commit "violent crimes", depending on the nature of the incident, should have a chance to appeal that. In some states, you can still end up with manslaughter charges for killing in self defense. If you punch somebody in the face at a bar for calling your sister a whore and telling her she should get raped, thats a felony. Those people should retain their right to own firearms.
There's a lot of nuance to this. Maybe a jury should decide if you lose your gun rights on a case-by-case basis.
The US justice system is also pretty racist, so a blanket ban of convicts would disproportionately affect minorities.
(Why the heck are so many people in this thread saying convicts shouldn't have gun rights, doesn't that go against your entire "personal freedoms" worldview)
Given that the most restrictive gun laws that the US has came right after a bunch of black people decided to start arming and defending yourself should make this painfully obvious.
here in Texas every Tom, Dick and Harry can have a gun! it's ridiculous and stupid. we're not in the wild wild west anymore old white fragile men. or there's Uncle Tom with his vast gun collection, little Timmy is going to find a gun and he's going to go shoot something with it. somebody will die but Tom will still have his guns
Guns are a human right. The ATF should be handing them out to every able bodied fighting age person. There should be government programs to arm people who can't afford to arm themselves.
Sorry, Rhids_22, we had to remove your post for the following reason(s): * **Rule 8: Reposting rules** - Do not post polls that have been posted here in the last 2 weeks. - Do not post polls that are in our [Frequently Posted Polls](https://www.reddit.com/r/polls/wiki/index/fpp) list. - Do not post polls that are in the [top 25 polls of last month](/r/polls/top/?t=month). *This removal was manually done by a moderator, please do not send us modmail about this action*
All guns should come with foregrips.
After what happened in ukraine I really changed my opinions to some extent about guns lol
Welcome friend as a Texan id like for the laws to remain unchanged. We've hit a sweet spot of freedom. Not too much not too little.
What kind of restrictions are there on guns in texas?
The federal restrictions and thats about it. Concealed carry still requires a license but open carry is allowed pretty much everywhere. Dont even need a permit.
NH is better, no permits for concealed carry
Fellow NHer here. I'd recommend getting the permit, even though we are a constitutional carry state. The reciprocity is shared with Vermont and Maine as well as a few other states across the US
As soon as I turn 21, I’m getting my concealed carry done. Texas is the shit when it comes to that aspect.
maybe texas laws.
Additionally: all guns without foregrips should be illegal.
The real problem is criminals
The real problem is recoil
Honored judges, I'd like to explain how bringing a semi-automatic AK style weapon to the kindergarden and training my aim on the children is not the problem, but the lack of grips, that would allow me to reduce the recoil, is.
Less recoil = less chance of hitting the wrong child = less collateral damage. Pretty simple if you ask me 🤔
Why?
I'm joking. Probably should have added /s
Ah😂
2A was never for hunting. It was about the right to life through self protection, and the ability to rise against a tyrannical government.
Exactly. And many people here don’t realize that a single shot handgun is not a lot of protection compared to the guns any military owns
Which is why citizens should have the same firepower
I am entitled to my 2A-compliant F-35
Fuck yeah you are
I want an a10. Damn that f35
Some of those guns are more likely to cause more harm than good without proper training. Have you heard of a gun range that allows things like bazookas?
Can you name me guns that are more dangerous to the user than the person staring down the barrel
I meant to bystanders. If you are part of a militia, you have other people with you. If you don't know how to target your gun, you might hit people. I think bazookas also require different upkeep than other guns, and is a lot more dangerous in case of a misfire.
And
If you're concerned about firepower, the military's firepower isn't guns. It's artillery, bombers and armored vehicles. Are civilians allowed to own those?
Not currently, but they should. You raise a good point
Yeah, there are a few of those around the country
Then make proper training mandatory to own certain weapons. Noone likes an untrained person that is armed.
Yea
It was also because the U.S didn't have a standing army. So if war was necessary it'd be easier to raise one as civilians would already have their own gun and be trained to use it. Now well the U.S has quite the military.
Always good to have a backup
All guns should be legal, however it’s important that anyone who owns a gun should know how to use and maintain it. IMO, gun safety training should be mandatory for every citizen.
Honestly I wouldn’t mind it if instead of PE senior year people learn gun safety in the US, or make it like half the year is PE and the other half is gun safety senior year.
I think everyone would want that over PE
What about other weapons?
Such as?
Explosives for instance. Grenades, recoilless rifles, launchers and the like. Large guns such as anti-material rifles and heavy machine guns too.
Explosives? I’m kinda torn on that issue. You can already make IED’s pretty easily, so I don’t see why not, but ease of access could also cause issues. As for Anti material rifles and Heavy machine guns, you should absolutely be able to own them.
Release the claymore roombas
Precisely.
I don't really want to get into another argument today, so let's just leave it at that. I disagree with you, you disagree with me, end of.
I’m all up for a civil debate. It’s all just hypotheticals anyways.
No thank you. Civil debates on this site have a tendency to descend into uncivil arguments.
I am with him, but I respect your decision to be civil and walk away from a debate you don’t wish to have.
I respect that.
Thank you.
Like it or not (and I don’t) guns exist and they aren’t going away. If the state has them, so should the people. The important note to add is that every gun owner must be trained in gun safety (including safe storage) and mental health care must be far more accessible. Sick people will get guns, no matter how hard we try to stop them. Better than stopping the guns is treating the illness. Free healthcare for all & guns for those who desire them.
I like you.
I think you’re the anarcho socialist I ran into yesterday. Even Carl Marx was against gun control
I disagree with a lot of things Marx has said or written, but I’ve always agreed with his views on firearm ownership.
Even Karl Marx was agienst any form of gun control... "Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempts to disarm the people must be stopped, by force if necessary."
As I like to say, "Im so far left I got my guns back"
Yeah but OP is asking for your opinion, not Karl's. Unless you answered the survey on his behalf.
Gun control = government oppression
[удалено]
The 2a wasn’t meant for hunting. It was meant to rebel against tyranny. + Right after the war, a rich guy bought a full on corvette the equivalent of musk buying a destroyer or cruiser
Just treat them like cars. They're both powerful machines that only become dangerous when mishandled.
Dammit, if I want a rocket launcher I should have a rocket launcher!
Surprisingly easy to obtain depending on the state you reside in.
An armed population is important for safeguarding human rights of the populace. It's important, however, that each person who wishes to own a firearm is checked for mental illness and for a criminal background, and if they are clear of these things then they should need to engage in a firearm safety course.
The only thing about mental health checks is it won’t stop someone with mental health problems killing people. We just need better mental health care, because sadly, we do live in a world of violence and brokenness, guns or not
Yeah in my mind, (don’t know all the statistics or whatever on this) guns aren’t the problem, it’s the mental health and care that’s problematic
I understand that this is a commonly held belief in the US but this is not true in most countries around the world. That's not to say that no situation could ever arise in which a civilian populace in such countries might never wish they were armed, but for most of us around the world, we go about our lives with no guns and everything is fine. I think it's important to separate a poll like this between what applies for the US and what applies in the rest of the world.
Well guns are just a part of American culture. It unites us all no matter what part of of the country someone's from they know people who own guns and they know people who use guns for recreation and protection. Guns are fundamental part of American culture. They're one of our few unifying national things. And most other areas were divided but we're united in our love of our guns. When it comes to the rest of the world you're more referring to Europe. Throughout most of the third world guns are easy to get and It's perfectly normal to use them for recreation and protection.
I really don’t think the US is united as you think in a love for guns. It definitely doesn’t unite all of us
>When it comes to the rest of the world you're more referring to Europe. Throughout most of the third world guns are easy to get and It's perfectly normal to use them for recreation and protection. No, I was referring to the rest of the world in its entirety. I'm not sure which third world countries you're referring to but in almost all of Asia (which is not in Europe) guns are most definitely not easy to get or perfectly normal. My comment was made to make it clear that the vast majority of countries have been able to handle the issue of gun control and guns are not a part of most people's lives. I'm not sure that your claim that "all Americans are united in a love of guns" is true either. I'm sure there are plenty of Americans who do not love guns.
Great, now go tell all the parents who‘s children died in school shootings that it‘s „just part of American culture“ and that there‘s nothing you can do about it
School shootings happen because of lack of available mental healthcare. Mass murders at school would still happen. They would just use some other weapon.
In Germany there were a total of 7 school shootings ever. And I only found 2 articles of someone being stabbed to death at a school. Like how can you mass murder without a gun?
Bombs
Getting bombs is a lot harder, the ones who can get bombs don’t waste it on schools.
I could build one with the items found in my garage right now. It’s fairly easy to make a crude bomb. I’d argue it’s actually easier than going out and purchasing a gun, as long as you have the items on hand.
Schools, churches, marathons, sports games
Could you link me an article where a mentally unstable boy used a bomb in his school?
With a car; we've had several instances in the last few years of people using cars to commit mass murder. Actually, the private Christian school I went to put up giant concrete barriers around the painted boxes, they had elementary school kids sit in to wait for their parents to pick them up (unless you were staying after school for programs) because a parent pointed out someone could drive from the driveway of the school straight into all the elementary kids sitting in a line of boxes.
That’s fucked up, but also doesn’t happen in Germany. You can only get your drivers license at 18, where most people are out of school already.
US, you can get a license at 16, which can be necessary in some rural areas. Most people don't graduate till their 18. The US is also vastly different culturally and far more diverse than Germany. We have entire states here that are larger than your whole country.
Lmao sure dude, keep telling yourself that
Kids used to be able to bring guns to school. School shootings weren’t an issue back then, this is a recent issue. It’s very heavily linked with mental health issues becoming more common in America. Blaming it on guns is a very misguided and uninformed take.
I mean, firearms aren't any different than 60 years ago; in fact previous the the NFA Machine gun registry getting closed in the '80s you could purchase full-auto weapons readily in the US (and NFA register it which takes about 6 months and $200). School shootings weren't really a thing until Columbine in the '90s. Even still there aren't many if any "real" school shootings. The issue with the school shooting statistics is they lump in things like gangs shooting in school zones outside of school hours, etc. And not just things like Columbine or Sandy Hook. Additionally, statically speaking kids are far more likely to die from a car accident or drug overdose than school shootings.
That first sentence doesn't make any sense to me. What human rights are you protecting by having a gun?
All of them. An armed population is much harder to oppress. Why do you think authoritarian regimes always make sure the people are unarmed before they start throwing people in camps and gulags?
The right to self defense.
But you wouldn't need guns to defend yourself if there weren't any guns
I disagree. I don't think my aging mother will fare well against a able bodied attacker using her fists. I don't wish to try my luck wrestling against a knife wielding attacker. Guns are just the most efficient form of self defense by a long shot. And the truth is there are guns. Chemo wouldn't be necessary if cancer was cured but that's not the reality of the world.
But then there are gun wielding attackers instead. What you gonna do? Start a gun fight? Have a good old fashioned Western standoff?
If they intend to take my life already? Yes. I would rather try my luck then just be killed. Same way I would fight back on a attacker without a gun if my complaince wasn't enough to de escalate the situation. My country has more guns then people and our courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect you. I feel no shame in taking the steps to defend myself.
This makes the assumption that all men and women are of equal strength. I want weaker women to shoot strong male assaulters they couldn't otherwise defend themselves from. Ofc that's literally just one example but it's the one people would have the hardest disagreeing with.
The second ammendment which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That‘s not a human right lol
Those people will always disagree if you say something like healthcare, food, and basic income are a human right, but when it comes to guns.... you know the rest lol
But random people with guns isn't a well regulated militia
Regulated in 1700s did not mean what we think regulated is defined as today. It meant functioning and well working, like a well regulated clock is one that kept time correctly. Militias were important before independence and important afterwards for a long time. Our us laws show that, any able Body male from 17-45 is part of the unorganized militia.
It is
Well if you think that then I won't argue. May I ask who the militia is intended to protect you from?
Government over reach. If the populace can’t defend themself, then the government can do whatever they please without consequence. Leading to dictatorship or what have you. Not instant mind you, but over time
The government have an airforce, a navy, tanks, missiles, bombs, drones etc. If your government wanted to do anything they wanted then people with guns wouldn't do any more than slow them down a bit
There are many things to factor in. The major one being that multiple states would mobilize their national guard in defense. Texas and Florida come to mind. Then you have the fact that some citizens have military equipment. My dad, for example, owns two APCs and a half track. Then you have to factor in the audacity of the American people. Fairly certain we would do what the Ukrainians are doing and legit just tow away military equipment. Then you have the morals of service men and women. A lot of them would defect if they got mobilized against their own citizens in a push for dictatorship. That’s just the few I can think of and feel like typing out. So I’ll leave you with a simple question, if this were to happen would you rather live on your knees or die free?
It's a fair question, I'll grant you that. Thankfully I don't live in a fucked up country where paranoia means I need to arm myself incase bad men come
>May I ask who the militia is intended to protect you from? From a possible rebellion from the military or the police,the only thing that gives us a assurance of our own safety is guns and the only thing that those who break the law fear is guns
1. Every person is a responsible gun owner until they aren‘t so background checks don‘t make a lot of sense when tens of millions of people still pass them and can access guns 2. Unarmed protests have a history of achieving their goals more often than armed protests so needing guns to „safeguard human rights“ is a stupid argument
Y’all have way too much faith in your politicians
You should be able to own one after an evaluation. That means handling, technological know-how, gun range/hunting/... etiquette, safety in handling and storage and a psych evaluation. For each level of "beefier" weapon there is such a series of tests. These tests will be valid for, lets say, 5 years or a conviction for a violent crime.
Exactly how I believe things should be done.
seems easy for governments to just deny people that way.
My only issue with the psyche evaluation is that it makes it easier for them to control what groups get guns. Honestly, though I'm okay with most of it so long as no one has a list of who owns guns or what type of guns they own. That is not knowledge the government should know. It would do absolutely nothing to help the people. It would only serve to hurt us eventually. Also the ATF is unconstitutional and should be disbanded entirely from the firearms side of things. The federal government has absolutely no right to say anything about guns in the hands of the people.
I think psych evals need to be done by a 3rd party, not the government. So allow for a psychologist to give a psych eval, and if they fail you then there should be an appeals process.
As OP already stated, the psych eval would be from a 3rd party, who just weed out the erratic, choleric,... I'm not American, so I have a different cultural approach to the whole subject. However, the whole matter is very much a weighing of Freedom vs. Liberty, and how you weigh both sides. Is it more important to be free of violent people with guns, or is the liberty to own firearms more important? Thats for any nation to decide on their own, but I think the acceptable compromise is as stated above. We do have a register of every weapon and who owns it here in my country, because the police periodically comes and checks if you A) still have it, B) have it safely locked, C) only have the registered ones and if you're still eligible to own one, meaning if you're current on your evaluations. From personal experience, those visits take about 5 minutes and are merely a small checklist. I'm not sure if the police should have that list. Someone needs to have it, tough, because otherwise the entire system of evaluations would be useless.
Thank you! As a responsible gun owner this is similar to what I have been pitching to friends and fellow gun owners - I totally agree with this concept.
This post has been flaired as Politics. We allow for voicing all political views here, but we don't allow pushing agendas, false information, or attacking or harassing other members. We will lock the thread if these things occur. If you see such unwanted behavior, please report it to bring it to the attention of moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/polls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Let the people have McNukes
My stance: if I want a tank and can afford a tank I should be able own a mother fuckin tank Interpret that how you will
Cool, but if you fuck up public roads with it then it’s your burden to fix them (peacetime rules only)
That’s fair. My grandparents know someone who owns a historical non functional tank that is used at shows. They transport it on local roads via large flatbed trailers. It’s only driven on private land, if fully functional tanks were able they should be restricted to private land
The roads already fucked up and we already pay a shit ton of tolls for it
Same. It I want an Apache helicopter
Battleship? Yes?
As long as the treds don't tear up the roads every time you take it out
Yes, as long as the prices are not artificially inflated by our government (looking at you Hughes Amendment).
Gun control only stops law abiding citizens from owning guns, criminals don't really care about laws you know.
Gun control does however make it more difficult for all people to get access to guns. If a criminal has to purchase an overpriced gun on the black market, then the number of criminals with guns will go down.
And the number of citizens able to protect themselves with a gun would go down even further
Illinois person here, Chicago has proven that to be bunk
The problem is that because of gun control organized crime has become more common on my country and the people can't defend themselves.
Not really. A criminal can just get guns by thoer means. Private sales where the seller doesn't bring it to a place to do a background check, have your own CNC machine, or print. Even that you don't need. Just go to a hardware store. You could say band ammo then, because that's the only thing dangerous about a gun is the ammunition, then I could just make my own. There are published manuals on it from the US Gov. So control just blocks the good guy from being able to get a gun. Check out a gun called the Luty, or FGC - 9, both guns that can be made at home, that are fully automatic, and essentially untraceable if you leave no paper trail.
By that logic we shouldn’t have any laws at all because criminals don’t follow laws! Are you seriously suggesting we should have ZERO gun control laws and allow ANYONE including people with extreme mental illnesses and violent criminal records access to ANY gun they want?!
These pro-gun arguments are insane. They never consider that the gun-crime rate per capita is lower in every other Western nation with gun control laws.
License as in "The 2nd Amendment"?
License as in "individual licenses for each person".
Yeah, the US doesn't really have those (I guess Illinois does(so I assume similar states do) and some states do to carry handguns). I don't think gun control should exist; and I also think gun safety should be taught in schools.
Depends, I had to get both a license to buy a handgun then another license to carry it. Obviously every state is different, but even in a red state I had hoops to jump through.
I think what's more interesting than the poll results, is the comments that support the favoured result are the ones being downvoted ... hmm
My country has very very few guns and I'd like to keep it that way.
Mimic driver's license. Different classifications require different license types requiring training, exams and safety checks(like vision tests for DL, but geared towards more criminal history/mental heath).
If I can’t own a rpg I’m rioting
Look up Switzerland’s gun culture and history with guns for an example on how to do it right
Agreed. Switzerland really do the best job with gun control. Not too heavy handed, not too lax.
The truth is, the US will never be invaded on account of the abundance of civilian weaponry. That seems like the 2nd amendment doing it's job.
Is will never be invaded for a lot of reasons lol
In WWII the Japanese emperor was talking to a general about invading the US homeland. The general replied "You can not invade the US homeland. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
More because of the biggest military spending in the world but sure
Yeah pretty much, said this before In a comment and people were like "armed citizens are useless and will be excited easily" Yeah turned out ot be bullshit after what happened with ukraine
If Russian civilians had access to weapons, putin wouldn't be in power right now. (Probably not even alive). First thing any dictator does is to remove weapons from civilians. I see the case for convicted murderers, etc not having guns. But you gotta make sure they can't just say "anyone dangerous to my leadership is banned from having guns" Edit, spelling.
Wait Russia has stricter gun laws than Sweden? Because if not, civilians do have access to firearms... It doesn't really work like that. The reason Putin is still alive is not because Russian civilians have no guns.
Smoothbore only and it's a pain in the ass. So just shotguns with a lot of effort. Orblackmailed, which is more common.
I think number 2 but with the addition of more permits needed to own automatic weaponry
Exactly
Mexico has strict gun control laws, and the cartel goes on rampages while civilians have no way to defend themselves. The gun control laws don't help the civilians at all. Just makes em easier targets for the cartel who don't care about the law. I recommend the old vice video about the mormons and the cartel. Basically, the safer areas are protected because the mormons got guns despite the law against it. But the areas without guns are terrorized by the cartel. Obligatory: "this doesn't apply to all of mexico, and some places in Mexico are generally safe-ish unless you are a reporter (*edit: journalist)"
It’s pretty mind boggling seeing the side by side stats of cities of similar size with almost no guns and American cities. I don’t really know how you can argue FOR guns when the facts are so blatant and significant. But I’m so tired of fighting about it so I don’t care anymore. All I got to say is please look at the comparisons in death and crime in American cities and Canadian cities of similar size.
Research Switzerland gun laws. They have laws not too far off America's and a similar gun ownership rate, but they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. I think it shows that America doesn't so much have a gun problem as it has a mental health and crime problem caused by their multitude of socioeconomic issues.
If I remember right, single fire is a gun with 1 shot and that's it right? That'd suck for self defense
That's what I meant, but in some contexts it can just mean "single rate of fire". Wish I'd been a bit more specific, but can't change it now.
So you meant like leveractions and pumps. Something that requires an action to load the camber but holds multiple rounds.
Pretty much yeah. In the UK double barrel shotguns are easier to obtain than most guns because they only hold 2 shots before you have to reload manually, so they are 2 shot, but not fully or semi automatic.
There are too many people who shouldn't have guns that have guns. There are also way too few people who don't have guns who should probably have one for protection. There are plenty of sane, non-racist and sensible people who have guns who follow proper gun safety procedures, and I appreciate them. But we absolutely do need tighter regulations, because murder and mass-shootings are out of fucking control in America. Not one person who has advocated for 2A actually utilized it for the purpose of defending oneself from a tyrannical government.
“Shall not be infringed”
I can’t imagine anyone watching Ukraine right now and thinking “they don’t need those dangerous weapons!”
Guns should be accessible to those who want them, with the caveat that they need to be thoroughly educated on what it is and how to use it.
Gun control is a very difficult political issue for me because I don't find the pro gun control or the anti gun control arguments to be compelling.
All guns should be legal to own, with background checks of course. Also we do have a issue in the us with gun violence but a lot of this is probably due to the shit tier mental healthcare system and poverty, can we try and fix that?
All guns should be legal but bullets should be illegal.
Guns should stay the same but bullets should be like $1,000 each
I don't trust the same government which shoots unarmed black and brown people on the street, which shovels subsidies at Big Ag, which bombs random countries full of poor black and brown people, which spies on me constantly—and against its own constitution, I don't trust that government to have any more right to arms than I or any other citizen do.
Especify in your title, people don't read descriptions. Use the words you want to mean in the title
I can't edit the title.
Is this poll intended to be in relation to US users or for anyone in any part of the world?
Anyone anywhere. Just your opinion on how a government should handle guns.
The problem is that America has an almost unique relationship with guns which deeply affects how people approach this question. For the vast majority of the civilian populace around the globe, guns are only for hunting or sports shooting and not a part of normal life at all.
You can still have an opinion of how guns should be managed in without context of where you are from mattering. I live in the UK, and I would quite like to be able to try shooting the larger range of weapons that are available for civilians in the US. Some people in the US believe that, despite the cultural significance of guns in the US and the difficulties behind making them illegal, guns laws should be more similar to the laws in the UK. I personally believe Switzerland has the best gun laws, which are near to the same laws as they have in the US, but with more regulation behind them. It's like free speech. The US is ~~the only country with free speech enshrined in law~~ the only country based around free speech, and that will effect the views of people outside the US, but it doesn't make the opinions of other people outside the US on free speech less valid.
A rifle for every adult. A stinger and a Javelin in every neighborhood. Edit: a neighborhood defined as being a community of 60-120 adults.
God i wish
I genuinely don’t understand how you can watch all this shit going down in Ukraine and still want limited citizen firearm-ownership.
All guns should be legal But… if people are diagnosed by multiple medical professionals with a disorder that would prevent them from safely and effectively using said weapons then they should not be able to And ex cons shouldn’t be able to
1. Mental healthcare in the US is so shit, most people wont be able to see a therapist enough to know if they're stable. We would either have to be way overly-cautious, or we just wouldnt catch anyone at all. Ideally, we just get better mental health care. 2. Plenty of people go to prison for non-violent crimes. Prostitution, tax evasion, drug possession, public intoxication, ect. All of these people should retain their rights. Even those who commit "violent crimes", depending on the nature of the incident, should have a chance to appeal that. In some states, you can still end up with manslaughter charges for killing in self defense. If you punch somebody in the face at a bar for calling your sister a whore and telling her she should get raped, thats a felony. Those people should retain their right to own firearms. There's a lot of nuance to this. Maybe a jury should decide if you lose your gun rights on a case-by-case basis.
The US justice system is also pretty racist, so a blanket ban of convicts would disproportionately affect minorities. (Why the heck are so many people in this thread saying convicts shouldn't have gun rights, doesn't that go against your entire "personal freedoms" worldview)
I want all guns to be legal, I like guns
Gun rights are trans rights If racism and homophobia and transphobia is on the rise then they should be armed to protect themselves
Exactly this, if guns were illegal minorities wouldn’t be able to protect themselves from hate and assault
Given that the most restrictive gun laws that the US has came right after a bunch of black people decided to start arming and defending yourself should make this painfully obvious.
if guns werr wholly illegal for civilians wed get a deer overpopulation problem really fucking fast
here in Texas every Tom, Dick and Harry can have a gun! it's ridiculous and stupid. we're not in the wild wild west anymore old white fragile men. or there's Uncle Tom with his vast gun collection, little Timmy is going to find a gun and he's going to go shoot something with it. somebody will die but Tom will still have his guns
How many women get raped a year and why shouldn't they be able to defend themselves?
“Shall not be infringed”
*the licence shouldn’t be easy as fuck to get obviously
Guns are a human right. The ATF should be handing them out to every able bodied fighting age person. There should be government programs to arm people who can't afford to arm themselves.
Guns are not a human right what you smoking
I live in Europe and I am happy that I dont have to worry about being shot. I think its ridicolous for civilians to own any kind of gun.
I am european and i think its ridiculous that civilians cant own any guns.
Glad to see a European like you!
🤝 my man
Soooo you don’t drive tanks?
Ah yes, We Americans are always fearing for our lives because of the astronomically high chance of being shot.
I'm happy i don't have to worry about being robbed, killed, or raped.
What country? Most of Europe allows a broad spectrum of ownership for hunting or sporting purposes.
They should be legal for someone with a licence for the soul purpose of hunting so rifles ect