How do we tech enthusiasts feel about guns?

[FireofDestruction]

They don't, but if there are no guns period there is no access to guns.

how do you take the guns they already have? though forced searches, they'll object U.S constitution doesn't allow it, well then again......their idiots and don't know they can object

[LOST TALE]

There is no significant correlation between tech enthousiasm and the stance on the poll, pass along.

Trivial.

[Mooshi]

I'm going to assume the 5 pages are filled with blah blah blah misinformation as always when this thread gets posted.

 

You can die by slipping on soap, should soap be banned? Cars cause death, goodness, let's ban automobiles as well. While we're at it, lets get rid of food since that can be a choking hazard and choking to death is bad. See how ridiculous this is? It's not the gun that is bad, it's the person holding it and their intentions/responsibility level. Take eating a hot pocket. A sane person would wait for it a to cool and not bite into the lava cheese.

 

Now to answer OP's question, I think guns are neat. People gotta eat and shooting stuff for sport can be fun (I'm talking things like clay pigeons and not shooting an animal for the sake of it) For fighting, however. It's cowardly to not fight someone one on one. Criminal scum, yeah, I support shooting filth threatening your family in the face out of self defense.

[mr.skyrim_pc]

This is the way I think of it, criminals will get guns no matter what. If we ban all guns, you can't protect yourself against a criminal, so gun control only hurts good people.

[Alec Harpers]

input is greatly appreciated.

 

Is it though ?!?

[Thebman712]

As long as im not involved i dont care

[Ngrungebb91]

Our founding fathers gave us that constitution. It's the law of the land. 2nd Amendment shall not be changed!

[Guest andyysplash]

Just do what we do in the U.K. Ban them. No guns, no gun crime.

 

I know others have already commented about the issue of criminals not following laws, but the real issue and difference is that we in the UK made laws against firearms very early on. The average person also was less likely to have access to a weapon (not counting crude implements such as pitchforks or sharp pieces of metal or plastic), but as America was founded on the principles of being 'free' (and I feel that they've lost a lot of their freedom over the couple hundred years) they had to allow guns as a basic right of defence. It's too late to ban guns and have them mostly go away.

 

So really, we're in a completely different boat to the US.

[Guest andyysplash]

Also, outlawing things doesn't always help. There's the ongoing argument to legalise certain recreational drugs because if they're not illegal then that may help reduce gang crime where different dealers are competing against each other in a certain area. However, the obvious problem with that is that if some substances are made too readily available people are more likely to come into contact with them than before, which is worrying since some substances are inherently dangerous.

[ajoy39]

It's not possible to ban all guns. We have speeding laws and yet people still speed. Those stupid people will just make their own guns if they wanted to.

That's a terrible analogy. You aren't taking away a tool by banning speeding, a ban on speeding is akin to a ban on murder, but if you ban cares how can they speed?

[WillFromGA]

That's a terrible analogy. You aren't taking away a tool by banning speeding, a ban on speeding is akin to a ban on murder, but if you ban cares how can they speed?

What I'm saying is, if they ban guns, people will still get guns. It's breaking the law. Obviously some people just don;t care about the law.

[ajoy39]

What I'm saying is, if they ban guns, people will still get guns. It's breaking the law. Obviously some people just don;t care about the law.

If the make the sale to all citizens illegal, there's no where to get them regardless of if that person cars about the law. No one, literally no one, who wants guns banned believes that criminals are going to go "well it's illegal to own a gun, so I guess I won't!" because what you say is correct, it's also illegal to kill people with them and it's still done. the point is to not even give them the option. If something doesn't exist in the general population it doesn't matter if they would break the law to get it, because it's near impossible to get it.

[ajoy39]

Also, outlawing things doesn't always help. There's the ongoing argument to legalise certain recreational drugs because if they're not illegal then that may help reduce gang crime where different dealers are competing against each other in a certain area. However, the obvious problem with that is that if some substances are made too readily available people are more likely to come into contact with them than before, which is worrying since some substances are inherently dangerous.

I think the main reason banning drugs has been so ineffective is simply that, you can grow it in your basement. Banning them hasn't really created a distribution problem for most drugs because they are fairly easy to produce at home.

[WillFromGA]

If the make the sale to all citizens illegal, there's no where to get them regardless of if that person cars about the law. No one, literally no one, who wants guns banned believes that criminals are going to go "well it's illegal to own a gun, so I guess I won't!" because what you say is correct, it's also illegal to kill people with them and it's still done. the point is to not even give them the option. If something doesn't exist in the general population it doesn't matter if they would break the law to get it, because it's near impossible to get it.

They will make their own guns. It probably won't look pretty but it will shoot stuff.

On top of that. Even if people say "Well since guns are illegal I guess I won't use them." (Which will never happen) people will start using other weapons until we get to the point where we have to ban those new weapons.

[ajoy39]

They will make their own guns. It probably won't look pretty but it will shoot stuff.

On top of that. Even if people say "Well since guns are illegal I guess I won't use them." (Which will never happen) people will start using other weapons until we get to the point where we have to ban those new weapons.

They'd be more likely to kill them selves than anyone else if they tried to make their own guns. And yes, people will still murder, but not with the same numbers and ease. Other weapons provide opportunity for self defense and just plain take longer to kill people with. Murder as a whole will never be elminated, mass murder be greatly reduced however.

[WillFromGA]

Or a reliable, responsible person can get a licence to carry, and if they are in a public place with another person who has a gun, and is threatening to kill people, I would feel much more safe.

[Imaginaerum]

how do you take the guns they already have? though forced searches, they'll object U.S constitution doesn't allow it, well then again......their idiots and don't know they can object

If they were banned (which I hope never happens) and they knew you had a gun they could just get a warrant for the removal of your weapons which bypasses that law, which is reason #7462 why you don't tell anybody in public that you own guns, and is probably why so many people don't want a registry or want trades to be under the table.

 

The way I see it, if someone doesn't want guns they can move to some place where they've banned guns. I hear a lot of "I feel safer here than in America because I'd be shot," which is fine because I feel perfectly safe in America. Live where you want and be happy.

[scaryjam823]

We ban guns, people use bats. We ban bats people use knives. Ban knives people use hammers. Ban hammers people use wrenches. The point is the guns aren't the problem it's the messed up people who use them. If someone has a point to kill someone and doesn't have access to a gun they'll find another way. You cannot ban everything that can be used to harm people.

There are some messed up people in this world. Violence and murder are just part of living, there needs to be mental tests performed at some point to see if someone is stable. People just need to stop worrying so much about it, it's a part of the life we live and shitty it may be the best thing to do is learn to protect yourself.

Trying to limit every possible way someone can harm another is impossible and will solve nothing because the issue isn't being addressed.

The fact is some parents are shitty, they raise kids in ways they shouldn't be and some are just born messed up in the head. Guns may be a way to kill but so is nearly everything you can buy in the store. You need to address the root of the problem plain and simple.

What would actually help more than anything is allowing anyone to own a firearm and carry. Knowing that everyone around you has a gun and can kill you will slow the problem. It's been proven cities with everyone owning a gun is safer than anywhere else. Nobody is going to mess with you if they think their life could end. In the end we all have an instinct to survive and you wouldn't walk into someone's house knowing they more than likely have a gun and will kill you for being there.

[TheWall]

Ideally there would be no guns for anyone who is not just protecting the people, but you don't wanna be in a situation where criminals have guns, but John Dough can't protect his baby from the criminals with guns. But then again you constantly hear about these accidents when idiots get guns in their hands, so i think maybe it should be allowed but you would have to go through firstly mental health checks and then also be trained to handle it decently, and only like a glock, no grenade launchers or anything like that. Also none if you have a criminal record

[Mentalguy]

First of all, the second amendment that everyone pisses themselves over was made during a WAR in which everyone had a musket of some sort in case they were called out to battle, during a time when guns were two feet long, and took thirty seconds to reload. To keep those laws the same in a time where we have tiny, more powerful and precise guns that are fully automatic, it doesn't make sense. Why amend every law but the one that's potentially the most dangerous?

"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."

 

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with the militia fighting for the government. It was put in place so the average citizen could take up arms against a tyrannical government, if or when it was needed.

The founding fathers thought of this, just coming out of a war with a government they perceived as tyrannical, so they put in a safeguard in place so the government would think twice about crossing it's people, or face another revolution.

[Guest]

"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."

The 2nd amendment had nothing to do with the militia fighting for the government. It was put in place so the average citizen could take up arms against a tyrannical government, if or when it was needed.

The founding fathers thought of this, just coming out of a war with a government they perceived as tyrannical, so they put in a safeguard in place so the government would think twice about crossing it's people, or face another revolution.

That's my point; they had come from a war where the citizens were a large part of the battle, and so it seemed right that they be allowed firearms, in case the country was ever put into danger again, and they needed to defend themselves (from outside forces, or otherwise)

But fast-forward a few hundred years, and things are very different. We have a huge military presence, we have drastically more deadly and easy-to-use guns, and they laws around them are wholly unchanged. I'm not saying guns should be off-limits to everyone but the military, but we need revisions. As I stated, Georgia recently passed a rather loose open-carry law, and that is exactly the opposite of what we need to keep homicides and other shootings from continuing the way they are.

[Caincard]

I was raised around  guns, and the  major aspect that i see is that fundementally the media sensationalizes the negative and pushed the positive to the back. Sure an instance where someone defended themselves or their family might make a local news (rarely). But because bad news equals good ratings they tend to keep those good cases down. Not  to mention most of the numbers i see thrown around are not statistically equated with the overall numbers I.e whole numbers vs. the #/100,000 standard used by the CDC and FBI UCR. Put into consideration Special interest groups that will highlight anything supportive and burying anything that can counter the arguement (same as how  Fanboyism will accredit their chosed product while discounting the competition). On top of that Major politicians touting number that are grossly over exagerated, undercut, or giving aformentioned misrepresented data as fact instead of doing or having research done by a non partisan group. Several times i referred to the FBI UCR and other Fed studies that counter their point, to which they more often than not fail  to show Criminal statistics have dropped considerablly over the past 20+ years. Then there is the misrepresentation of the  "assault weapon" where what they are talking about is a modern sporting/civilian sem-auto. Instead of the HIGHLY REGULATED fully automatic versions. Also trying to stack more laws on top of the laws in place that had no bearing on the events where weapons were gathered by illegal means such as theft. Also more often than not the though of "Transferance" from one statistic to another is completely by passes as the statistics surrounding violent firearms deaths are just subcategory of violence according to offense. As Obama stated :we do not have a monopoly  on mental illness." In reference to the U.S.A neither do we have the monopoly regarding violence across all the categories. I am independent at best politically, and i am not a member of the NRA or other special interest groups. Not saying everything media says is wrong or illconcieved, but if they  are going to quote information they should look through the already vast amounts of collected data and statistics and correlate with their own findings. instead of taking their personal data and using that as causation.  Sorry for the uber long post, just putting my 2 cents in since my state probably has the most Lax gun laws, yet has virtually the lowest Gun crime rate divided among the states stats.

[theABCshop]

It's not the guns, it's the people. Plain and simple, its our Second Amendment right (in the U.S.). And that's all we have to say.

 

You can try and argue, "Oh, well there wasn't such advanced weaponry in the 1700's."

 

Yeah, well there weren't Liberals either...

[Abakan]

The bubble some of you live in.. I've been cringing so badly reading through this topic, it's extremely disappointing. Not just the ignorance, but the hubris. It's absolutely clear there can be no debate here, not on this topic (Not on the internet in general). The equating guns with typical household objects, defending the NRA's lobbying in D.C., dismissing cruelty to animals because butchers exist in our food chain. 

 

I didn't study constitutional law as my father did, but he was an expert and retired U.S. Army, and he absolutely abhorred the gun lobbies in this country. Having lived all over the world, I can say with a bit of perspective that what we have in this country is sickness of a kind unseen anywhere else. The same people who support the NRA are those who've been voting against their own interests for decades, those who decry the separation of church and state and deem contraceptives abortion mechanisms. The extreme right wing, holding the country back at every turn, destroying political discourse, at 'every' turn; these people shouldn't be taken seriously. Give them a bible, a .45 and a reasonable selection of blue denim jeans and they're happy enough living on the poverty line as the party they help elect destroys any chance they had of a future. A bit much for this forum, we can see where this is headed.

 

Times change, peoples change and nations change. This union can be made more perfect, and nothing should be off the table, not even the second amendment. I'm half asleep and I can't go on, shouldn't even post this.

 

All this talk about computer upgrades, some of you need to upgrade your gray matter, stat.

[RazeG3SG1]

If I live in a country where there is a very deep gun culture then I'm not against them.