Are you for or against gun ownership?

Question

Opinions welcome.

To me, I think that people should not be able to own lethal firearms. Instead, replace them with more non-lethal bullets, like plastic / rubber bullets and baton rounds, which are to me, the better suited self defence weapon.

Alright, but are we ok with the current gun laws?
How can we change the gun ownership laws?

Answer 1

At close range (less than 15 yards), there is no difference between a plastic/rubber round and a regular raound.

Answer 2

I don't think taking them away is the answer. Furthermore, regarding "non-lethal" bullets.... if there were less consequence in shooting someone, we'd do it a whole lot more.

EDIT:

Further still, if gun ownership was made illegal, that would not have any effect on instances like the recent mall shooting in which the gun used was an illegal weapon regardless. For this reason, I think our efforts are better spent in other area's of security, rather than in the banning of "lethal" firearms and the subsequent law enforcement that would have to take place to insure the new legislation.

But that's just me. Cheers.

Answer 3

I am for gun ownership.

Gun control is being able to hit your target.

I have always said that if we had a more martial aspect to our culture, and an armed populace then Crimes like Virgina Tech would not happen.

If criminals are afraid they will get killed they do not commit crimes, or at least not major crimes that can get them killed.

If the nut jobs had a short life expectancy while trying to commit those kinds of crimes they would not risk it.

As it is now, they are assure of the "Fish in a Barrel" because nobody can stop them.

EDIT~~~~~~~~~~~~

Non-lethal is a waste of time, sometimes bullets don't stop them, rubber would just piss them off.

I think the current gun laws are sufficient, but I think the gun laws should allow all trained citizens open carry.

Make the training through the National Guard and be allwed to open carry once certified.

Answer 4

I completely support the gun owners right to keep and CARRY weapons. Every Democrat, despite what Fat Limbaugh might say, in congress is for gun ownership. What the liberals are against is assault weapon ownership. When is the last time you thought "I'm going pheasant hunting tomorrow, better get the AK47 out and clean it, ya never know when I might need the extra fire power". Assault weapons are designed with a single purpose to assault other people and kill them. They have no purpose outside of that. Nobody wants to take away shotguns, rifles, and I personally wouldn't touch handguns. But assault rifles?? Who the hell could possible think these are used for anything but killing people? Yet southern people are terrified that those darn democrats are going to come take there deer rifle. Stop it already.

Answer 5

I am against free gun ownership. Only those with a legitimate need should be able to carry a gun. And no, this does not go against the 2nd amendment. In fact, it is already true in some parts of the US (DC, San Francisco, Illinois, etc.)

Answer 6

Guns are just tools. Like just about any tool, they can be used for good purposes and for bad purposes. These days you can't even carry a nail file on an airplane. The right to bear arms is one of our fundamental rights, so I wouldn't take that away from law-abiding citizens.

Answer 7

less than lethal ordinace would not prove effective for all applications. maybe for the defence of ones home from human pests. You cant hunt ducks with rubber balls.

Answer 8

Omaha, Nebraska. Gunman opens fire on second level of mall. 13 dead. More wounded. Mall policy prohibits legal citizens to carry. nuff said

Answer 9

I am not for it.
then why should be LAW in the country. any body can take the gun in their hands. Recent incidents in US and India point out to more misuse than real use.

Answer 10

I agree. Hunters can use bows & arrows like real men.