How do you think guns should be regulated?

More regulation or no guns at all
More regulation or no guns at all
  • Limited to no regulation (i. e., age requirement and no fully automatics)
    Vote A
  • Background checks and/or waiting periods every purchase but no licence
    Vote B
  • License needed to own firearms with it having to be renewed with accompanying mental evaluations
    Vote C
  • License needed as per above but also with a reason or ownership (excluding self defense or recreation)
    Vote D
  • Civilians should be banned from owning fast-shooting firearms (lever action, pump action, and/or semi-auto)
    Vote E
  • Civilians should be banned from owning any firearms
    Vote F
  • Other (reply with how you think it should be regulated please)
    Vote G
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
1353

Most Helpful Guys

  • While I support the 2nd amendment staunchly, I concede that people who wish to own firearms, INCLUDING semi-automatic civilian versions of military fully-automatic rifles, should require effective state certified training in operation, safety, and effective household storage for all class weapons of handgun, shot gun, and semi-automatic rifle, to prevent children from both finding these weapons easily and shooting these weapons. This training and certification should be required with every licensing renewal followed by background checks and a mental health examination by state certified doctors.

    The beautiful thing about having a license to own and operate any state-legal to sell firearm is first an effective age restriction, second it can be recognized from state to state like a driver's license and it expedites gun store sales since you already passed a background check to receive your license, third since this license is recognized from one state to another state then these license holders can purchase civilian semi-automatic rifles that happen to be banned for sale in their state of residence and these purchases can not be denied to an out-of-state license holder for it will violate the right afforded by the second amendment, and fourth if you do commit a violent crime that calls into question mental health, your license can be suspended by the issuing state, your firearms confiscated by state police, and it will require a good amount of time to restore your good name to earn the privilege of owning a firearm once again.

    Are we in agreement that this degree of "gun control" will make both sides of the argument happy?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I regulate mine just fine. Well enough that I have taught over 100 people how to shoot, including over a dozen police officers.

    I'm an out of shape fat guy but more than one person who has seen me shoot IDPA have said that they felt sorry for the bad guy who came after me.

    The vast majority of legal gun owners never commit a gun crime (and commit considerably few crimes in general) - in the US, the majority of gun crimes are associated with the illegal drug trade, and the remainder are almost all committed by known criminals who can't legally own or buy a gun - so more regulations won't change that. If they could, we could simply outlaw gun violence and be done. Sadly, criminals don't obey laws and the world is awash with guns.

    If people can smuggle in weed by the ton into a country that grows plenty of its own, then they will have no trouble smuggling in guns (which also already happens).

    You might as well wish away atomic weapons too.

    0|0
    0|0

Most Helpful Girls

  • In reality if the point of gun regulation is to truly try and keep guns out of the hands of people who are gonna commit crimes and kill other people with it. Those people are just gonna find a different and illegal way to get a gun. So more gun regulations isn't going to remove the issue.

    Maybe implementing a program to educate kids/teens on guns, and gun safety, how to care for them, and there intended usage will actually lower gun violence. If education kids/teens on dugs and alcohol lower the chances of them miss using substances. Whats the difference between teaching kids right from wrong with guns? For fixing the school shooting issues schools need to change there policies on punishments when it comes to bullying.

    0|2
    0|0
    • Absolutely

    • Show All
    • I never said we need more regulation, or that guns kill people. I simply suggested educating people on guns and changing schools pilicies with bullying and how they punishes kids. So i dont understand the point of your comment.

    • I have to admit that in the UK, where even the police don't have firearms, there is a lot less gun crime than other countries. That said, I still don't believe guns should be held from people that use them responsibly.

  • No citizen needs a semi automatic. Like what? You need to kill dozens of people? A simply handgun is enough for protection

    0|0
    0|0
    • You clearly don't understand what Simi automatic means.

    • Show All
    • Bad spelling or not, just about every handgun is semi-automatic. Yes, there's reason a civilian needs a semi automatic rifle. Self-defense situations are stressful and thus make one prone to making mistakes. The ability to make a second shot after you miss or even misplace the first can be the difference between life and death.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

1151
  • Civilians shouldn't own firearms period to be honest. We're not going to war. Leave the use of firearms to the professionals. There is already heavy debate in regard to the context of the 2nd amendment...

    0|0
    0|2
    • @MermaidMotel-Are you saying that because there’s “already heavy debate in regard to the context of the 2nd amendment”- your words-civilians shouldn’t own firearms? Because it being debated means , of course, no one should have a gun. That’s what you seem to be saying.
      How do you know we’re not going to war?
      I would say, YOU should be no where near a gun.
      It might accidentally fall off a table and shoot you dead.
      People like you don’t deserve the protection you have by law enforcement, you’d just as soon live under a dictator, where no one can defend themself from tyranny, because you believe no one should have a gun, except for your oppressors- the “professionals” you mention in your ludicrous statement.
      Go ahead and check yourself into prison, the rest of us will remain free,,,

    • Show All
    • @mermaid- you don’t know what tyranny is. And you ask me if I’m dumb? Wow, moron doesn’t even begin to describe you. Moron X 1,000.0

    • She thinks The Gulag is a fancy resort in Russia.

  • Background checks for purchase, training and saifty classes required. Registration with the serial number. Anything more than that will only benefit the criminals.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Seeing as how ineffective many forms of gun regulations have been already, as from anywhere from small, targeted to killings to large public attacks has shown numerous times of people who "slipped through" the cracks that weren't supposed to have firearms or were known to be deranged to many around them yet nothing is done, I support removing most regulations. It is time to stop treating everyday citizens like they are some threat to society and stop treating gun ownership and hobbies involving it as a taboo thing.

    If I had to support a system of regulation, it would be similar to Switzerland's. You apply for a countrywide permit and the judicial system does a background check on you to make sure you aren't a problem. When approved, now you may own most types of firearms without restrictions on barrel length, caliber, accessories, etc. You would also be able to concealed carry and bring your gun to any state as long as you follow their local laws (some states require you tell police you are armed, some don't, etc.).

    There is no good reason that I am entrusted to carry a gun on me everyday in one state to defend myself and others, yet I can't do it in another state.

    0|0
    0|0
  • To be honest, fully automatic weapons are not that useful for anything.
    As they are inaccurate, they are only used by soldiers trying to provide covering fire, or when engaging in an enclosed environment — buildings.

    So now it may seem like all is lost because the bad guys could use an automatic assault rifle inside of a building, but there is a miracle weapon that can be used to counter this: (other than a fully automatic rifle) a shotgun. There is no gun better for shooting inside houses and buildings than a shotgun. Shotguns are already legal.

    Now, what is the use of a fully automatic rifle for a civilian?
    1) A criminal may use such a gun in drive by's.
    -- However, criminals often use only handguns. Their attack potential tend to be concealed. Equally, they tend not to enjoy using bigger guns. We now this by the fact that these criminals when shooting at other people, mostly other criminals, choose to use semi-automatic handguns, as opposed to the equally semi-automatic rifles -- like the AR, which provide more firepower.
    Why would criminals not use a more accurate and powerful gun? Would they start using automatic rifles then?
    2) Civilian militias would need automatic rifles for the same reason soldiers do:
    in order to fight, military style, foreign or domestic organized and armed groups.

    Overall point: Automatic Rifles don't have to be legal, but there is reasoning to prove that it isn't such a crazy idea, even if not the best or even a good one -- which gives room for discussion. Crazy ideas are blown off into the wind; Legal Automatic Rifles aren't crazy. (Doesn't have to be legal for all you know.)

    0|0
    0|0
    • Fully automatic weapons are already highly regulated. You have to have a Federal license and need permits to transport them and use them. They also need a transfer fee and a tax to purchase one, and they are very expensive to buy legally. So basically they are illegal to own for your normal citizen. The ones used on the streets are bought on the black market and are already illegal so why add more laws for a fully auto when criminals will get them by skirting any laws.

    • @EclipseoftheHeart Yes. Do you disagree with me? Because I believe we are on the same page -- that is my impression.

  • Guns are made for killing. When you buy a gun, you should know this. They don't protect, they kill. I have used fire arms, and I don't see the point of their existance.
    World without guns please!

    1|0
    0|5
    • I’d have to disagree, there’s a large market for recreational shooting as well, and there’s also hunting. I’m a rancher and have a rifle in my hand just about every day, and I see points for their existence.

    • Matt, I understand that from the hobby perspective. I wish, that would be the only use of them in the whole world. But I would like to ask you, for fun: If you would be the god for one day, and you could decide, this current situation or a world without guns. Would you still choose the current world because of your own hobby?

    • Yeah. Things shouldn’t be ruined for everyone else just because some asshole decided to shoot up some people. Besides, a world without guns doesn’t mean killing will cease.

  • Should be regulated with licenses, owners need to at least renew it through some sort of evaluation and there needs to be thorough education on how to handle a gun. I recently did a basic gun handling course and learned quite a lot. Let's be frank, people will get guns somehow, legal or not. Might as well make it easier for authorities to keep track of it somehow. rather than have unknown variables popping up when they don't know.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You should need a license to own them, training on how to properly use them and a mental health evaluation every 5 years.
    Absolutely nothing wrong with owning guns, if there is proper regulation and education.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think there should be more restrictions on handguns and less on bolt action rifles and pump action shotguns.

    Also, I think people who argue for the right to bear arms on the basis that we need to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government but are against any downsizing of the military in the US shouldn't be taken seriously.

    1|0
    0|0
  • Every country other than USA thinks so.
    It's a sensitive issue in the US because the country was basically won over by citizens being allowed to have guns. That was the past though. Times have changed and guns have also changed. Not that guns back then couldn't have killed anyone or anything.

    It's such a weird issue in the states and so frivolously defended by groups like the NRA that everyone should be armed to the teeth that it is hard to do anything about.

    1|0
    0|2
  • @MermaidMotel- who the fuck are you to tell me what I don’t need? You are delusional, to think you know better than me about what I need is incredibly stupid. You don’t know jack about what I or anyone else needs. What a moron.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm fine with guns but clearly some people shouldn't have em. If your a violent offender or have mental problems, you should be barred from owning one.

    1|1
    0|0
  • It is the only constitutional Right we treat as a State's Right. Cars kill more people every year than guns. Yet there is no cry to ban the automobile. Driving is a privilege not a Right. You tell me how a Right, a Constitutional Right should be regulated.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I voted the first one, although I really wish full automatic were back to a $200 tax stamp (before the 80's) and they didn't have these dumb Short Barrel rifle & shotgun laws, and that suppressor were not on the NFA list (that was made in the 30's) and treated like normal firearms again.

    1|0
    0|0
  • There ain't no regulating guns in the US. There's just too many of them and they're far too ingrained in the national identity of the Americans. That's not to say that US wouldn't benefit from having fewer guns, but as it stands the issue is unresolvable.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Im not from a country with guns but what I think should happen would be back round checks and waiting time for the guns, there should also be a limited in what people can purchase for a serious crime or even right out banned from buying a gun if that have done some gun related crime.

    still you would need to find a way that does not strip the rights of the well behaved citizens and limits the criminals access to the guns

    0|0
    0|0
  • we need universal background check and a required license to own some guns, I don't want to ban anything outright, I think thats fair and sensible, ps my father is a gun owner which may have contributed to me beinig moderate on this, pps the gun in the pic is an FN five seven

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm someone who would love to one day have a gun. I think there should always be, safety classes, and tests to get the license, after you proven you are mentally fine. For what I've seen, medicine is the dangerous thing, almost all mass shooters are taking some kind of pill

    0|0
    0|0
  • They shouldn't be. Every citizen should have a handgun and a rifle and be taught to shoot and respect it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • very limited, people that are going to commit crimes will always find a way, they dont care about the law

    0|2
    0|0
  • You should have a license, a background AND a psychological check, and it should be limited to small firearms, non auto.

    You don't need to have more firepower than a dreadnought to defend your home.

    0|0
    0|1
  • Civilians have no firearms. I love guns, find them interesting, but would never want to own one.

    1|0
    0|1
  • No real regulations beyond a temporary (or perhaps permanent) ban on them for individuals who have shown that they are incapable of handling being in possession of one (like those with mental disorders or who have commited violent crimes or armed robberies). Though to be fair those wouldn't really stop those things from happening but it might stop a few (though again, I would have to see data actually showing those measures would be affective, if data shows they are not then we shouldn't bother with them as in some cases ex criminals are in need of protection (ex gangmembers for instance, even though they may be out of the gang that doesn't mean that other gangs are not going to hold a grudge against them and potentially come after them).

    0|0
    0|0
    • My state denies concealed carry licenses to anyone ever arrested for domestic violence. Note I said arrested, not convicted.

    • Show All
    • @hellionthesagereborn
      the more I think about it, you are correct. I probably got the fine wrong on that. Perhaps it is a conviction.

    • @spartan55 At this point I wouldn't be surprised if it was an arrest only situation. They have done everything they can to slowly erode peoples rights to bare arms as it stands its not impossible this is the case.

  • I think you should throw them all away destroy them all and stick to swords or fists you know something that takes skill.

    0|0
    0|2
    • Ok, sure. Because we know for sure no one will find a way to make one, no one is smart enough to figure out other ways to quickly kill, right? No one in America ever comes up with new technology, no one ever invents things in America- right? We all know Americans are really dumb, and have never created anything worthwhile. We know that, so you, Daniel3035 must be right. We’ll stick to swords or fists, like you so intellectually advise... right?
      I would want to crawl under a rock right now, if I were you.
      I’m embarrassed FOR you...

    • Show All
    • @Daniel- 🖕🏼

    • @Girther10 LOL mature but nothing says defeat quit like that.

  • Well muzzle breaks and the gas system help regulate firearms.

    Aside from that none.

    Not sure what part of infringe the politicians are not able to understand.

    0|0
    0|0
  • melt them all down and make them into knives... then send them to the uk so we can try fighting fire with fire though i suspect that wouldn't be sucessful either

    0|0
    0|0
  • C is basically how our system works. And while the RCMP having unchecked power to do whatever they want does cause some issues, our licensing process is very effective and everyone is happy with it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • To prevent kids using it and hurting/killing themself or other should guns not be stored loaded and it should be in a case with lock and keys. Only the owner of the gun should have the key.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Your level of firearm knowledge is very low. 'Fast shooting firearms'... ugh John Wayne is rolling in his grave.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No regulations, every gun control in history was followed by oppression and corruption.
    Hitler took the jew's gun away, commies took Russian's guns away

    0|1
    1|1
    • In the US civil war, guns weren't taken away and it lead to one of the bloodiest wars in American history.

    • Show All
    • Also the part about slavery is racist is wrong, slaves were sold by other rich black slave masters

    • Not everyone before 1860s owned or supported slavery.
      I never said slavery was racist. Fucking read what I say.

  • They are already regulated. Isn't your question really, what new regulations should we layer onto existing regulations.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think MAINLY we need to have strict mental evaluations, & we need to be able to pass background checks. We need to be way more stricter.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Simple manufacturers regulations to make sure they are safe to use. Other then that no regulations come to mind.

    0|0
    1|0
  • If there are to be regulations on firearms, they should be purely confined to regulations that limit who can possess them, rather than on what types can be possessed.

    Heavy mounted artillery in the right hands will result in no harm, but a mere semi-automatic handgun in the wrong hands will be catastrophic.

    So a license should be required in order to own any type of firearm, and it should only be obtained after successfully completing rigorous training and mental evaluation--and it should be due for renewal regularly. However, there should be zero regulations on type and model of firearm, nor on any attachments or adjustments to the weapon.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Where? Arizona isn't ganna regulate them so it doesn't matter what you do in your town. Unlimited guns are just a short drive away. People need guns not to die in Alaska. You just can't put a gun sanctuary here and say ok now this law is ganna stop people from murdering other people. The whole idea is preposterous. I can make a zipp gun and rounds in my basement. What's next you ganna ban hack saws and CD players? This is just the "green" new deal increasing green house gasses all over again. Try to understand something before you try and blanket a socialist law over it because you're afraid. Those willing to sacrifice freedom for safety need only to go to prison. A nice strong cage to protect you and 3 meals a day. Is prison what you want for everyone?

    0|2
    0|0
    • Y’all are lucky. I’m Californian (the good kind) and it’s a misdemeanor to buy ammunition across state lines and probably a felony for ammunition purchases. Hope y’all never get it this bad.

    • Yea those misdemeanors sure do stop murderers from killing people. I'm sure when they murder people the first thought in their head is am I in a school zone? I mean a $300 fine on top of 30 to life just makes it not worth it.

  • Firearms are fun I like AK-47, Maverik Carbine, Snipers, and other stuffs , but all these weapons should be given to the persons who have been through background checks, not anyone should be allowed to just get into store and buy it , secondly these weapons are good for one's protection but these weapons should only be allowed to middle class and high class if you provide these weapons to lower or poor class they might sell this weapons out to gangs and stuff , plus there should be age restriction

    0|1
    0|0
  • License needed as per above but also with a reason or ownership (excluding self defense or recreation)

    1|0
    0|0
  • Through ammunition sales, and the sales of equipment and materials need to make your own ammunition if it is ever at all to be regulated.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It should he mandatory for every none religious kid and adult to have one and a death penalty offense for a religious person to be within 10m of a gun

    0|0
    0|1
  • Once a year everyone who owns one should meet up, stand inside a big circle, then on the count of three they can all fire!

    0|0
    0|2
  • Other. No bans on what you can own, constitutional carry. Remove gun laws, strengthen castle doctrine and stand your ground laws.

    0|1
    0|0
  • owning fast-shooting firearms which civilian really needs it?

    1|0
    0|0
  • Tbh it should've never started being sold to civilians but it's too late to disarm them now.

    1|0
    0|2
    • Not even for collectors, historians, recreational shooters, and farmers/ranchers?

    • Show All
    • I don’t have much of a problem with the Western era, except for the racial issues and people shooting others just for saying something they didn’t like.

    • Which is the main issue of wild west era. My point of it never should have started in the first place still stands. It also prevents and lets wait until one pulls the trigger.

  • I have a my take on this topic, but here is my list
    Guns that you have to load each cartridge manually (ie, fixed tube magazines and gate-loaded revolvers, as well as single shot/double barrel designs) whatever you use to vote, you use to buy one, pending a safety course between purchases.

    Guns that can have their ammo all loaded at once (box mags like the ar-15 magazines, swing open revolvers, etc) an increasingly strict sereies of background checks depending on whether it can fire full auto, has rifling that can accept bullets wider than.50bmg, or none of the above.

    0|0
    0|0
  • needing some kind of license and a mental evaluation would help

    0|1
    0|0
  • If we can figure out a clear solution with mental health, it should be much easier to fix gun issues. Mental health is the biggest (if not, only) issue with guns. People should be allowed to defend themselves. No person or law has the right to take that away from them. Sadly, some people attempt to paint themselves more as a victim (as much as they can) to justify someone else's death when in all actuality, they murdered them. We must de-escalate issues, instead of escalate them. I personally stay away from people who tend to push situations dangerously/violently. If it comes to that point where I will have to, then I WILL defend myself and my family and friends (and strangers who need help).

    0|0
    0|0
  • I’m a responsible 19 year old rancher with plenty of land, and I don’t agree with a lot of these. I’d like to own full-auto weapons, suppressors, night vision and thermal optics, as well as flamethrowers (for my burn pile). I figure if I’m responsible and own the land for it, I’m not bothering anybody.
    I don’t even agree with with there being an age requirement, and I’m fine with background checks, but in July California is going to do background checks for ammunition sales and purchases will be logged with the DOJ and I find it ridiculous. And it’s already illegal for felons and domestic abusers to get them, so that should remain. Of course they can always purchase black market stuff.

    0|0
    0|1
  • I think bank round checks and mental go through training every year got get checked tested seem fit.

    0|0
    0|0
  • License + a deep background check+ mandatory gun safty training

    0|0
    0|0
  • Civilians shouldn't have firearms

    0|0
    0|2
  • I don't think they should be regulated.

    1|2
    1|0
Show More
12

Recommended myTakes

Loading...