Are Guns Okay?

Are you allowed to legally own this gun without being 18?

 

Nope. Not in US anywhere I am aware of certainly not in Texas.

 

It's actually 21 for a handgun in the United States and 18 for a shotgun.

 

Shotgun/rifle and any longgun .


But thats not what was asked.

 

I was basing my answer off of that. Was just letting him know it's 21 for a handgun and 18 for shotguns.

 

Yeah I didn't think so but you never know.... 'murica lol

Thanks for the added info guys

 

What I find genuinely curious is that a lot of the pro-gun arguments revolve around the "guns don't cause violence, people do" mentality, yet if I remember correctly, people voted against measures such as background checks which would have largely helped that situation.

I now expect someone to say something like "criminals don't follow the law", but frankly, that's no excuse for not doing anything about it.

 

What do you propose then? I mean, gun control is not black and white, I'm sure a lot of pro gun people (like myself) are fine with some limitations. I just don't want guns to be illegal so the criminals can illegally obtain them, and then I'm unable to defend myself.

 

I think the problem with US is that they do too much. It reminds me of Obama saying that if congress won't do anything then he will do it alone. It pretty much means breaking the constitution in the name of doing something (lel).
Also please explain how would the background checks largely help the situation, cause I only see it as a hurtle for people who are looking to buy a gun for accepted reasons such as self-defence or hunting. I also see it as a boost to the blackmarket, cause the more laws there are the higher the price of guns will go making the business more profitable, so no I don't see how background checks would make a largely helpful change.

 

Why are people focusing on America when the question is about guns in general? Gun violence in America is just absolutely insane for a country that considers itself world class and civilized. Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year in the U.S was 10.30 in 2011. Let's compare that to other civilized nations.
In the UK it was 0.25.
In Japan it was 0.06.
In India it was 0.48.
In Canada it was 2.38.
In Australia it was 1.06.

The U.S ranks close to countries that are in turmoil, fight drug wars, and have constant violent outbreaks such as Mexico (11.17), Brazil (19.03), Panama (17.60), and Argentina (10.05). It makes you think, is it really guns in the U.S that are causing the problems, or the people in the U.S. Maybe Americans are just messed up.

A final note, Switzerland has no militia so each adult citizen is required to own a firearm making it one of the countries with the highest gun ownership rates (45.7 out of 100 residents own one). Their firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year is 3.84, about 3x less than the U.S.

 

No, the gun isn't actually owned under my name (it is mine though) but I am licensed to use a gun for hunting, and there are no laws against using a "family members" gun to protect yourself or your property.

 

Australian here.

No guns allowed for public use (exceptions apply)

I see guns as a negative aspect in life; take any of the shootings in America recently, what is the likelyhood of this happening if there was no easy access to firearms. Granted these people are not of sane mind but in a way, the gun law aid their rampage.

I'm in no way denouncing the american constitutional rights, this is just my belief that guns are not needed in modern society - I accept the thought of protection of one self from criminals who have access to guns but the knowledge that the victim you are attacking has a gun of their own might lead to escalated violence.


Brining in a second example:

Take the London riots back a year or two ago, looters and violence everywhere - add the public access to guns into this mix, instead of broken glass and stolen goods, there could of been potential for deaths. (Hypothetical I understand but my general point still stands)

 

There is a certain theory known as the Deterrence Theory in law enforcement. Proponents of deterrence believe that people choose to obey or violate the law after calculating the gains and consequences of their actions. The problem with the deterrence theory is that it assumes all criminals and humans are rational actors. Unfortunately, they are not.

You said it yourself, these people are not in a sane mind. A criminal will go to any measures possible to obtain a weapon. If someone thinks "I want to go kill 10 people" they're not going to be stopped just because a weapon is illegal to carry or purchase. They're going to find a way to get that weapon because their desired outcome is far worse than the punishment or any law that stands in their way of obtaining the weapon.

If you're advocating for less public access to guns, then you're advocating for a world in which only criminals can obtain guns. Easy access or not, criminals will obtain guns by any means. In the end, when it becomes difficult to obtain guns, you are only harming the victims of the potential crimes to come.

 

I'd like to focus on this point, your other two responses were absolutely correct.

Drawing back to one of my points earlier on in my piece; take two situations, country X where guns are accessible for the public, country Y where there is not.
A crim/robber threatens a member of the public for their valuables; lets assume in both cases this offender is in possession of a firearm of some description.
As per human nature - the fight or flight response will come into action. country Y's victim is more likely to choose to flight, accepting a loss in monetary nature but remaining relatively unharmed.
Country X's victim however may feel that fighting may be the better option (pride/self defence)[im not advocating that this is the 100% response but is possible as noted by yourself with the rational response], a firearm is pulled out in response and almost certainly a gunshot is fired; be it from the victim or assailant, there is now a body on the floor; possibly dead.

Awaiting your response.

 

im all for guns, and im all for BG checks, and even mental tests. /shrug

 

I'm not sure if you read my post before that one but I'd suggest reading it as it might give some insight on murder rates with guns and the countries that allow guns. For example I stated Switzerland has no militia so each adult citizen is required to own a firearm making it one of the countries with the highest gun ownership rates (45.7 out of 100 residents own one). Their firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year is 3.84, about 3x less than the U.S.

The example you give is completely hypothetical and is not supported by any evidence. People do not usually walk around the street with concealed weapons, it's usually home invasions and similar things. And in the end, if a criminal is dead I consider it a victory. One less scum on our earth. I don't consider death a bad thing if bad people are dying.

 

Guns are definitely not okay. Guns increase death in society because people will use a gun if it is available rather than a different weapon. Gun is more life threatening.

 

So it's better to let the criminal to go on and keep robbing because someone might end up dead? That's a good business idea, but soon a lot of people would be doing it so I'd prefer the body on the floor as it makes a clear point:
1)If the criminal gets shot then others might think twice before going down that rode.
2)Victim gets shot ---> police will more likely hunt down the criminal to prevent him from doing it again, also other people would be more aware and ready to handle these situations in the future so the next body would likely be of a criminal's.

We don't live in a perfect world and there are bad people out there and if they can get their hands on guns then I'd want to be able to do the same.

Also the statistics around gun crime and death are used to push agendas and not to give a clear picture. Else it would be easy to come to a conclusion that the US government is to blame for most of the gun crime in the country as most of it is gang related and gangs are a direct result of the ongoing war on drugs. If the people in charge were really interested in stopping crime and not gaining more power over the people(aka taking guns away) then they would just legalise drugs and prostitution. It would have a huge impact in stopping gang violence as there would be no point in maintaining a gang because there would be no profit from drugs or prostitution. So let's get drugs and prostitution legalised and see how guns crime goes down by more than 50%. End of rant.

 

they probably would of allowed them if there wont so many people who drank and didnt know what there doing and might kill them selves or family worst case senario

 

I think that there should be very serious penalties to owning a gun without a license