I am pro-gun and pro-freedom in general. The bottom line is, bad people do bad things regardless of what you try to legislate. There is no law that will make people better. A man determined to kill a classroom full of kids with either A) succeed or B) be stopped by a man better than him. Laws play no part in it, because the man already knows what he intends to do is illegal. He just doesn't care. It doesn't take a gun to kill gobs of people. Semi-trucks, cars, aircraft, household chemicals, home made bombs, and fire all get the same work done without a firearm, and in some cases these means of killings are far more efficient and effective than a firearm. Being mad at "gun violence" when violence in general is a problem means you have tunnel vision. A six year old who stabs his teacher to death is just as disturbed as a six year old who shoots his teacher to death, but only one crime makes the news. That's asinine. Treat the problem like it is, violence from bad people. Not violence from firearms.
I own guns but I wouldn’t say I’m pro gun. They are fun to target practice with but thinking about home intrusion and living in a semi paranoid state is not for me. I also would like to see less people using them to kill each other and themselves. It’s a protected right but it’s still not really serving the purpose it was intended for. To seriously think a group of 50 militia men with semi auto rifles or pistols can contend with jets, drones, tanks, missles, carrier groups, etc is ludicrous. So I get that people want to be able to have fun and hunt and defend themselves from petty violence but quit living to yourselves about defending citizens from their own government. Trillion $$ defense budget against guys with some body armor and weekend training. The narrative is crazy
There are benefits and problems with both possibilities. If gun access is easy people can kill others with less effort but if gun access is resisted defending your home against invaders is more difficult. I think both groups have good arguments and I don't know which is better.
Pro-gun... an armed society is a polite society. There's the reason for that... some dirty thug isn't going to hold a chick up for money when there is even a chance she will blow his guts out with a.45 ACP handheld little cuttie of a gun.
People with hair triggers around... shit gets even more polite. People saying please and thank you again.
Now you make laws that restrict only people that obey laws... that shit is going to fuck up everything. Now only the lawless have guns or carry them about as if it doesn't matter. That's where you get shit like public or mass shootings.
I lived in Japan for 10 years. Guns have been outlawed the entire time and even from past until the present (can't even have knives over 3 inches)... dude made his own shotgun... and killed that Shinzo Abe dude... he should've had some dudes around him with guns... right?
Pro gun. I had to use my Dad's old ruger security 6 9mm revolver to protect my family during a home invasion way back. Police didn't give it back but that's when I got serious with home defence and went straight out the next day and bought a Glock17 L & 19 in 9mm with two 31 round mags, bought two AR15s and a mosseberg 500 shotgun. I keep two 9mm ruger LCR revolvers for my truck and her car. Two sets of body armor. The Glock 17L is my main defence weapon and I keep it with the glock 19 in a gun safe in the bedroom, if there's an intruder at night I'd be able to respond quickly with it and a 31 round magazine while my wife locks the security door I had installed in the hall behind me puts the kids in big old cast iron bathtub, call the cops and be ready with the glock 19.
I dont really open or conceal carry except that time ANTIFA & the BLM were rioting, nobody wants that trouble when they see you got a glock.
That is indeed very true, however for the vast majority you need to be thoroughly vetted by the police authorities... Sadly there are those who illegally purchase via the underground black market.
@ChefPapiChulo unless you are parking a stryker on your drive way sure. But it's also the digital Battlefield thing where if anything from a drone to an infantryman, to a satellite to a tank becomes aware of your postion then who ever is best positioned can fire on you in about 60 seconds through computer aided command and control systems. Even CROW weapons platforms may become completely automated. The days of the civilian with his rifle standing up to foreign invasion or tyrannical has long past.
Very much pro gun. To explain why would take a long time. Long enough for a MyTake which I will do someday.
As much as I advocate the 2nd Amendment, I also advocate responsibility just as much. Because there are people who are not competetant enough to be responsible with them.
I suspect most anti-gunners are not actually anti gun, they're just scared of them because they don't understand them. Which is understandable.
I've actually got a MyTake in the works aimed at clearing up the misconceptions and debunking or confirming common myths about them.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
I’m very, very, very pro gun.
Its always remarkable to me that people have been so brainwashed to think:
“gun = mass shooting.”
Personal Firearms were developed so that a person can protect themselves against larger, stronger, or more numerous aggressors. I’ve know many more women who carry a gun than men. A handicapped person in a wheelchair can effectively defend themselves against someone with a gun a frail, elderly woman with a cane and a bad hip can effectively defend herself with a gun.
Liberals want to make all of these people victims. They want people to be beaten, raped, robbed, and killed if they disarm them.
I don't like guns, firearms are the biggest cause of death among children in the US. We're in desperate need of gun control. That being said, I'm not stupid enough to not own a gun in a country where there are more guns than people. I know how to shoot and I know how to protect myself but I genuinely don't think any American needs more than one gun to themselves.
I don't like the wording "freedom" to own a gun. I wish the wording be more like "responsibility" to own a gun. Take it nice and easy to begin with for all ages and learn as you go and respect the process and progress. Like basically everything else we do in life.
It's the god given right to a killing machine is a fundamental problem. See the difference to one being a duty and other is mayhem.
When I live in rural America, even if there was zero crime from humans, we still get wild animals, mountain lions have been known to drag kids away, or attack hikers. I had one stalking me once, but never had to shoot one.
Then again, I happen to be 90 mins away from a police response too, so if a bad person was trying to break into my house, it would take police up to that long to get there.
The guns aren't the problem, people are, it's ridiculous to blame an object because someone misuses it, just how someone can use a gun to kill someone they can use anything else, you can literally strangle someone with your hands, doesn't mean your hands are the problem, you are, let's also not forget our criminals have firearms unlike in the UK so if you think the solution is to take away guns from the responsible civilians, then you aren't thinking realistic because people are literally crafting firearms out of pipes and these grease guns can be used for the same crimes, let's not forget criminals aren't going to give up their guns, so leaving the whole innocent population defenseless then I don't know what to tell you, personally I don't want a cop to arrive too late and find me and my fam dead when I simply could take action into my own hands, you really trust your police like that? Let's all be honest at the end of the day, people only care about their salary and if you can't even count on some people to get your order right at a drive through you are really going to put your family's and your own life in their hands?
Proves my point even more, even people in UK can get their hands on firearms and they don't even manufacture them over there, hate to be in her country when shit hits the fan, I'm genuinely curious on how fast the population of England would be wiped out if they get invaded, good thing they got us for allies, I wanna hear them beg for our guns lol
@MementoMori777 well they do have 110,000 well trained soldiers, 7000 Royal Marine commandos, 4000 Gurkas, the 2nd most powerful navy in the world, 130 eurofighters, 30 f35 Bs, 400 challenger tanks, 67 longbow apaches. They have 400,000 of the awful SA80s and still maintain some gun and ammunition factories under BAE the UK being the world's 2nd largest arms exporter so unless we their US Allies decide to invade them no can touch them. They'd wipe the floor with the Russians in a day.
Also I can see the British army replacing their SA80 following suit of the US military with an 6.8mm assault rifle but instead of the M7 maybe going with a licence build of the General dynamics OTS platform or a HK416 chambered for 6.8mm or a similar weapon system the US Marines are buying the M27.
Yea but how many civilians would die? Ever heard that American saying " behind every leaf there's a rifle" my point is they will have far more casualties in civilians simply cause their civilians are vulnerable
Now imagine their powerful army with armed civilians, that not only can they use to defend their homes from foreign invaders but from criminals as well, let's not forget strategy is also a part of war and their civilians being vulnerable is a huge disadvantage
All they would have to worry about is taking that estimate army of 600k soldiers and the country is theirs, it's a huge country I doubt all side have strong defense, every defense has a weak point
@MementoMori777 in Iraq behind every dune was an ak47 it didn't seem to matter. Untrained citizens with guns are basically useless. Maybe if you are talking about those ex military vetreans you may be right, guys that seen action around the world. Even the US military would struggle to invade Britain, sure the US Marines inventory is the same size in men, ships, aircraft, tanks and men as the British military but the defender has the advantage
There's power in numbers, more guns, more power, and a bunch of armed civilians would win against a bunch of unarmed civilians, our country can use our drafty civilians to wipe out their civilians while our army deals with their army, seems like a disadvantage still
I just searched it, england has 198,220 active personnel in the military, the US has 482,416 troops the numbers seem unfair and that's just military comparison, not counting the armed civilians
@MementoMori777 the iraqi army during the gulf war and 03 invasion of Iraq conscripted every able bodied man they could find and gave them each an AK47, it didn't matter. What they got was a massacre everytime of iraqi soldiers who never even seen the enemy. Whole column wiped out by an A10 or Apache helicopter or an Abrahams tank. There's videos of insurgents surrendering to a single Apache helicopter that just systematically wiped their battalion out from well beyond their vision. Bomb strikes from drones they never knew was there. No modern combat is a meat grinder for the idea of civilian militia armed with a rifle. There's simply nowhere to hide any more with nightvision, thermal optics, motion sensors, cheap drone weapons. The US military is outfitting humvess, JLTVs and all armor are getting the CROWS system which can mount any machine gun up to 50 cal and rocket and grenade launchers. CROWs enables the vechile machine gunner to remain protected through a video monitor can see the enemy with telescopic, night vision, thermal optics, motion sensors, computer assisted range finder and targeting, the ability to triangulate quickly incoming ordnance to return fire. A machine gunner can conserve ammunition by being able to accurately target enemies with a single shot more accurately than a sniper. Then you consider the new rifles the army is getting but what makes it so deadly is the smart Scope that they are getting. Then there's stiff like hand held drone mortars and other stuff. Generally civilians are ignored, if they are armed then they are enemy combatants rather than collateral damage. No untrained armed civilians are walking body bags, what you use civilians for is to bring ammunition, food, medical help, sapping operations that will allow the trained soldiers to stay in the field or in war and food production.
@gorydetails unless you are parking a stryker on your drive way sure. But it's also the digital Battlefield thing where if anything from a drone to an infantryman, to a satellite to a tank becomes aware of your postion then who ever is best positioned can fire on you in about 60 seconds through computer aided command and control systems. Even CROW weapons platforms may become completely automated. The days of the civilian with his rifle standing up to foreign invasion or tyrannical has long past.
I do, if you're using for hunting and defense. But if you're just using it to shoot at targets or bottles, simply because it's fun, then I don't support that. Of course I understand target practice, but I see no reason for you to own a fucking AK-47, just because they're "fun to shoot." You're not gonna hunt anything with it, and you don't need a gun like that for defense.
Even though I'm a Brit I'm Pro - Gun, a firearm is like any-other tool there is nothing inherently wrong with them, it is the use they are put too. If the Democrats and ALL of the Anti 2A groups were truly about the misuse of firearms they would be aimed to taking the armed criminals out of circulation and the black-market weapons dealers. But they always go after the easy targets THE LEGAL Firearms Owners.
I grew up in the shooting sports and hunting with my dad and uncle, and I’m the keeper of the family dead relative gun accumulation. I’m pro gun for sporting purposes and defense.
Nope I don't fear living in my own home without a gun here so don't see the point. Ask me again in 20 years so far I've been through 20 without needing one so what's another 20.
Neither... I wouldn't own a gun but I think people should be able to if they want. Though there needs to be extensive laws and regulations in place for people to own and operate one.
Let me put it like this. Americans would rather make everything bulletproof then to change the gun laws. What's next? Bulletproof school books? I'm anti gun in some aspects. Only single shot guns should be publicly allowed.
I am pro gun. Don't have one, never had to use one, but if burglars are in the house with intent to hurt your family. A phone call to the police won't save those people. That is the only reason why I am pro gun. For this scenario.
i'm pro gun but with a LOT of regulation that makes it very hard to have guns for criminals or psychologically instable people. also i'm anti public carry permission. more intended for home defense.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
100 anti-gun.
The USA in one picture ^
1
2 Reply
Opinion Owner
+1 y
Thankfully, I live in a country where we don't need cowardly methods to protect ourselves.
If I lived in US or anywhere else where they were easily available I would have at least one. In UK its not culturally the normal, and controls are very tight around ownership
I have nothing against guns but I wouldn't let an average Joe fly a commercial airliner, no more would I allow an average Joe to carry a gun in public.
Unfortunately not just criminals misuse guns. The binary as it’s asked forces us to be either 100% pro or 100% anti. As I answered I’m not choosing sides. Certainly there are situations a gun is needed but also guns are misused by people and cause unintended harm.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
Opinion Owner+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions