I’d add to the background checks, safety courses and registration the serialization and registration of bullets. And making the buyer of bullets responsible if bullets he purchased kill or maim a human being.
Guns don’t kill people, bullets do (well, I suppose I could beat you to death with a .22.)
Pro gun.
I might be dead if it wasn’t for a gun and I’m glad I had one when I needed one.
There are a lot of farmers in my family, guns are necessary on farms and ranches, unless you think standing there screaming will work when a bear is chasing your horse or a coyote is after your sheep.
Or you can be trapped in your attic, watching helplessly, while a bear ransacks your house.
I suppose most of the farmers in my family would have failed the gun safety test, because there was a loaded shotgun behind every door.
The guns that weren’t behind the door were on a rack on the wall.
I’m not fascinated by guns, they are a tool just like any other tool.
I’m glad I had one when I needed it.
People who want to kill will always find a way to do it.
Criminals who want guns will still find ways to get them.
People are going to do what they want to do and banning guns will just drive it underground then only people who profit are the criminals.
Laws will no more stop the sale and possession of guns then it has stopped the sale and possession of illegal drugs.
sahirrnee, see it’s opinions like that that make me really sad to label myself as “pro-gun” because other people are going to assume I feel the way you do (since that is the default pro gun position), which is not something I really would be proud of.
You probably think I’m rabidly anti-gun based on my posts up thread, right?
I don’t own any guns, and don’t expect I ever will. I believe that people have the right to own guns, and that right should be infringed only with reasonable restrictions. “Reasonable” to me means something that will actually be likely to produce a good outcome, and that outcome does not unduly restrict people’s access to guns. So, background checks seem okay to me. Assault weapons ban seems like nonsense.
I think we assign irrational weight to gun deaths. “We have to do something!” is never a good reaction, IMO. What should we do? Why? What outcome do you expect it will produce?
That said, I also believe that restrictions that don’t amount to an outright ban can be considered. I also believe gun owners don’t need to provide any reason for “why would anyone need a gun like that?” If there’s a reason to restrict it, make your case. Otherwise, it’s none of my business why they want it.
So, I picked “qualified answer.”
No, I think nothing of the kind, I know rabidly anti-gun people.
I’m sorry that you feel what I post is a refection on you? I wasn’t aware I have that much power.
What if I only like Canadian bacon?
Unless you’re Canadian it’s not a hypothetical worth considering. It’s like asking a vegetarian what their favorite meat is.
I have some crack cocaine and some U235 I’ve had sitting in my trunk for weeks; sounds like you’re an interested buyer?
Another vote for slapping the op upside its head for labelling the choices as “pro” or “anti-gun.” Would of course have been just as biased to call it “pro” or “anti gun control,” but a bit less inaccurate as many who are for some increased gun control are also gun enthusiasts.
It is symptomatic of why this debate always goes the way it does that Lumpy does not quite get, even on reflection and revision, how his/her choice of words poisons the well from the get go.
Pro gun control . not necessarily anti gun.
I’m a two time Obama voter, life long Democrat and I can’t imagine voting for any Republicans currently on the horizon for any major office.
I’m also a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
I voted strongly pro gun.
I am not currently an NRA member.
Based on your criteria I am mildly pro-gun, but I think I’ve firmly established my gun rights position such that it would be an understatement to call it “mild”.
That’s not so much a criticism of your poll as it is a commentary on the difficulty of making such a poll to begin with.
I can’t afford either one and wouldn’t buy if I could-----I get to choose what I would spend money on.
Is it brilliant of you to admit you have illegal substance in your possession?
I voted “mildly anti-gun” as I’m fine with any non-felon owning them, but subject to licensing, background checks, adequate storage, mandatory training and periodic re-testing - and the same procedure for each gun e.g if you want two handguns, you need a licence for each, need to be tested on those particular models, and if you then want a shotgun, you need to be licensed and tested on that, too.
Bacon, because there wasn’t an option for “heavily-armed, but thinks there are too many guns out there and there needs to be some rather stringent controls put in place.”
My vote was “mildly anti-gun” but then I saw the explanations and would have voted “mildly pro-gun.” I do not want or need a gun but I recognize that other people have a legitimate need for them. I just hope that some day the NRA will be marginalized and that an intelligent discussion can be held regarding this topic.
I didn’t answer because I think the question is odd. I’m not pro or anti-GUN. But I am very pro gun CONTROL. If someone wants a couple of rifles to go hunting with or go target shooting and they’re not a criminal or insane, then more power to them.
p.s. – And if they think they need a gun for protection, then I may think they’re a bit paranoid, but I don’t have an issue if someone wants to keep a handgun in their home as well.
I hope the loony gun-control fringe can simultaneously neutralized. The NRA is hardly the only obstacle.
Agreed. Both positions have their vocal sides whose rigid adherence to their position prevents any rational discussion of the topic.
I guess I will go outside wait for the pigs to fly by …
And yet ironically the extremists have this in common- they each in their own way acknowledge the elephant in the living room of the gun debate: that partial measures are unlikely to accomplish any significant reduction in the amount of gun crime in the USA. The anti-gun people say this is why ultimately handguns need to be eliminated from society, while the pro-gun people say this is why partial measures are both futile and a bad precedent.