Social Question

rojo's avatar

Can you be pro-gun and still be for gun control?

Asked by rojo (24159points) November 21st, 2014

Is it possible for a person to like guns, believe that people should be able to own whatever and howmanyever guns they want and still believe that there should be some restrictions on what kind of guns citizens can own and who can legally own them?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

26 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

Well there are a lot of NRA members that think no one who is in a minority should be able to own a gun.

jaytkay's avatar

…believe that people should be able to own whatever and howmanyever guns they want and still believe that there should be some restrictions…

I think that is contradictory.

But responding to just the title and not the detail of the question – yeah, sure.

I like shooting guns, but oppose the open carry dorks who are fighting to make the streets safe for people like Adam Lanza and the Columbine kids.

rojo's avatar

@jaytkay Yeah, you are right, but hopefully people will understand what I am trying, inarticulately, to say.

flutherother's avatar

Sure, only nice people should own guns.

funkdaddy's avatar

I think so. I think there are good reasons to have guns, but it’s kind of silly that it’s harder to buy a car, open a bank account, or vote than it is to buy a weapon specifically designed to be as easy to use and lethal as possible.

You want a car, that’s cool, you have to register it, get it inspected annually, and insure it.

You want a bank account, great, let me see two forms of ID and fill out this form with full contact information and history.

Want to vote? Register and show up with an ID.

Want a gun? That’ll be $299.99, would you like a bag?

So I think that’s a little off. That said, if you want a rifle for your rural home, that shouldn’t be difficult. So maybe similar to a bank account?

You want 5+ guns in the house, probably time to register and have a background check.

You want huge magazines? Really, why?

Zaku's avatar

Yes, and many do.

Also, for example, I am a very mixed bag who doesn’t match that description, but I don’t think I fall in a typical hole. I am fairly interested in guns historically, and in games (computer or table-top), but I have never owned or fired one, and am uncomfortable and feel somewhat endangered being around people who have them. I think that communities should have the right to set local laws saying where people can and can’t have and do various things with guns, and I’d probably choose to mostly usually be places where guns are mostly not welcome. However, I also think there should be communities and places where, if the people who live there so choose their own laws, people are allowed to have guns, and in some cases have about any kind, and as many as they want.

And, as I have heard the statistics point out, I don’t think gun control actually tends to reduce gun violence that much. That is, gun violence is only rarely done by people using guns registered to them anyway. Making it harder to register a gun will not, I think, do much at all to reduce crazy/sick/bad people from killing people with guns – they already don’t generally register. And, people who are suicidal and homicidal can find other ways to kill people. I think the real way to reduce killing is to improve mental health and improve cultural attitudes towards guns and violence.

ucme's avatar

I’d like a gun, swung around my hips on a belt enclosed in a black leather holster.
I’m not in favour of the blind, children, really old people & those who wear socks with sandals to bear arms, that spells carnage on an epic scale.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Most pro-gun types think there should be certain restrictions and there are. Generally more than necessary are already in place though. Almost to the point of making gun owners 2nd class citizens.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I agree, I’m a Canadian and you should see what I have to do to have and keep my firearms.

janbb's avatar

One can only hope.

Strauss's avatar

IMHO, regulation, not prohibition, is the sane approach. I think firearms owners should have at the very least some kind of license that reflects some basic safety awareness, much like drivers. I also think each individual piece should have a traceable ID, similar to the VIN on a vehicle, and insurance (at least liability) should be required.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

@Yetanotheruser I agree, Most of what you said is actually already the case in the states. My biggest problem with gun laws is the lack of clarity and uniformity with them. Even uniformed, seasoned police officers don’t always know the law in their area perfectly. It gets even more difficult if you move to or travel through a different area.

Bill1939's avatar

My first thought is that I agree with the idea that guns should be treated in the same way that vehicles are since most violence involving weapons seems to be by criminals and severely mentally ill persons. Gun owners should be able to pass tests that show that the owner knows how to operate, maintain and secure their weapons, and that they should be required to have insurance that covers accidental harm a weapon may cause.

Many countries and states in the U.S. require firearms owners to carry an identification card before being allowed to purchase weapons and ammunition. Unfortunately, this is usually denied to individuals who have sought counseling by mental health professionals in the past five years, without making a distinction between people who are potentially violent or suicidal and those who have lessor emotional issues.

However, since the potential for a government to become tyrannical exists, registering weapon owners would enable such a government to preserve its power by collecting arms from its citizenry. It seems that an arms race between law enforcement and the populace exists, and that to maintain their superior firepower the effort by some authorities is to control and limit access to weapons by individuals. Until psychometric evaluation has evolved sufficiently to be able to identify violent personalities in both members of law enforcement and the general population, restrictions on gun ownership should be limited.

syz's avatar

I’ve taken the concealed carry course, but don’t own a gun because I can’t afford to get the one that I like. But I also believe that potential gun owners should have to take a competency course, should have to be licensed, and should be required to carry insurance.

Pachy's avatar

I think that people who like guns (I don’t) have to believe in gun control.

marinelife's avatar

It’s perfectly sensible. Much more sensible than the NRA.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@ucme you wrote: “I’m not in favour of the blind,... to bear arms.”

I had a legally blind Japanese guest in his late 50’s, visit my home. He said one of his life desires was to fire a gun. I set him up with a handgun, made sure his hands were in the right location so the slide would not cut off any fingers and pointed him in the right direction. “Stand here and face toward the warmth of the sun.” (To be honest it wouldn’t have mattered if he was +/- 90 degrees.)
He had such a good time blasting away. The sound, concussion, and kick were all there for him to experience.
Until he retired he had enlarged, framed pictures of that day hanging on the wall in his office. He said “his heart was touched. You trusted me!”
I tear up when I think about it.

No more estrogen laced soy for me!

jerv's avatar

I like guns, yet I think there are limits on who should have them and what they should be allowed to have. I feel that, except under certain circumstances, guns should be restricted to trained individuals of sound mind who lack a history of violent crime. (For instance, @LuckyGuy‘s friend was closely supervised, as are kids who carry a gun of their own when they go hunting with their dad.) Just as we suspend the driving privileges of those with DUIs and yank the licenses of those with certain medical conditions (having a seizure behind the wheel is dangerous), there are certain people that just shouldn’t have guns.

And while certain jurisdictions have gone a little overboard on restricting the types of firearms, I’m still not sure I really see the need for anyone to have a functional M2. Maybe a .50 BMG bolt-action for long-range hunting/sporting, but not a full-on .50 BMG machine gun.

But if you are a properly trained, law-abiding citizen who has all their marbles, then I have no issues with you having an armory. I think that we Americans have that right. So yes, it’s possible to be pro-gun yet still want gun control.

ucme's avatar

@LuckyGuy That’s a unique circumstance, I meant in general having guns in their own home, for defence say.

majorrich's avatar

I like guns, have a couple, and believe most Law abiding people should be allowed to have them without restriction. There are a few that I might think would need restriction as currently are restricted.
– the mentally unstable. Persons whom a Medical Doctor has determined would be unsafe to own a firearm.
– Felons. Violent felons should be restricted if it is determined that they should not have firearms. Probably their probation officer would be the best judge of that.
– Dishonorably Discharged separated members from the Armed Forces.
– Persons physically unable to operate a firearm. Either from profound disability as determined by a Medical Doctor, or by Dotage as determined by a Medical Doctor.

LuckyGuy's avatar

@ucme Oh, I agree with you fully. I was just taking advantage of the Social placement of this question.

ucme's avatar

@LuckyGuy Yeah & it was more or less a feed for my gag anyway, so its all good.

majorrich's avatar

Clearly there are some people from the very shallow end of the gene pool that might warrant a second look and only be able to obtain the kind of guns the dealer deems appropriate. The man on the scene probably has a better idea of the situation than some form dreamed up by some podling in Washington.

Winter_Pariah's avatar

Typically when I think of gun control, I think of people getting the appropriate background checks before obtaining a gun in order to see if said person should be permitted to own a gun for reasons that @majorrich listed. In that sense, why can’t a person be both?

JLeslie's avatar

Yes. The two things are mot mutualy exclusive.

Response moderated (Spam)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther