Okay - who should and should not own a gun - making this a poll and a debate Given some options but happy for people to add/subtract to those
Having lived by someone with a serious mental illness---I chose that. And I think once your have committed a felony, you revoke your right.
Hmmmm - Early dementia?? Would you include an elderly parent with early dementia? I ask because I read an article the other day about someone trying to talk an elderly relative to give up her gun - and she was in a low care facility. (makes you wish for the days of the metal bedpans - at least you could use them as shields!) but all joking aside this is a real problem for some families
Not so sure on that one. Businesses have the ability to prohibit guns. I'm assuming nursing homes and low care facilities have that option. If an elderly person is able to live at home---they can have a gun.
In most states, felons can only own a shotgun, post-probation or parole. They are not allowed to own pistols or semi-auto rifles, legally. If the conviction is related to firearms, they can never possess firearms, legally. While I agree with the mental health issue, but it would be very difficult to regulate due to the fact that not all people demonstrate their mental defects, outwardly. Not all felons are violent offenders.
so, now you have issues with race. .............figured you for that. Who's next? Asians? Blacks? American Indians? Sounds alot like Hitler's plan.
A gun actually gives me MORE chance to get yourself or your child killed. Unless you walk around with a gun ARMED at all time, if you are surprised by a burglar, he is more likely to bring a gun if he knows (of if he thinks) that you own one, and HE will have the advantage of KNOWING when he will confront you (or your child). And, if you keep that gun armed at all time, and in a location that you can easily access at ANY TIME, there is a very big risk that it is YOUR CHILD who will find the gun and shoot himself, or injure himself, or one of his friends. Just think. . .if you, an honest man (I guess) have one gun. . .why wouldn't a thief or a killer have TWO, or a faster one, or at least have the advantage of KNOWING when he will "need" to use it! Even if he threatens you with with a gun, if you are not armed, he may just take your MATERIAL possessions. But if he even sees you make a suspect move toward a gun. . .what will keep him from shooting you on the spot, BEFORE you can reach that gun! Society WOULD be better without guns!
See this is what we do not understand Very few people here have guns because we do not feel the need for them
" A gun actually gives me MORE chance to get yourself or your child killed.".........You didn't mean that the way it came out, did you. a whole bunch of what if's and maybe's and since you have no practical experience, all that can be done is supposition based on personal emotions, not experience. Each person reacts or responds differently in a specific situation and even I cannot predict what will hapen next, but I am prepared to do what ever will be required of me to protect my property and family. You assume, once again, every gun owner is sloppy....that is an error on your part, not mine
So you speak for all of Australia, now? you have fewer guns because they were all seized by your government, not by your personal will alone. And I'd be willing to bet not all Ausie's will agree with you. But that's ok, you have misrepresented yourself before here in this forum, so your credibility is shot...can we say where's your converts?
I know with Felons its strict and it should be!! Regarding the mental health issue---I lived by woman that frequently called the police and sent them to my house because she said I was getting into her attic---she would see me floating around in her attic. I dont' think she would come after me---but she'd be shooting a gun in an empty space the attic. I work down town---and some mentally ill people I run into are downright unpredictable and dangerous. But----we really don't have many cases of mentally ill people blowing other people away with a gun. So perhaps its a moot issue.
I voted for all option except the first one. If you had included Americans in the poll I would have voted for that as well.
Considering how many guns are in the US the violence is actually very, very low. Another thing to remember is that guns save lives as well as take lives. As far as who should have them....i dont know. I am not against exconvicts regaining there gun rights once they have paid there dues to society. If they are not safe to be out on the streets why the hell are they being released. There is a process for those who wish to regain there gun rights but I am not familiar with it. PSSST....also, machine guns are actually legal if you go through the proper BATF channels and can afford them. So are things like grenedes (I think) etc. etc. How often do you hear of these people going out and shooting people.....answer....never.
Everyone has the right to own a gun just as everyone has the right to not be threatened by someone holding a gun. I tend to worry when claims of mental instability or age are used as a limiting factor to gun-ownership because those terms are mostly subjective and subject to interpretation which will eventually become 'precedent' and built upon to take even more inalienable rights from US.
Interesting. If it is a right shouldnt everyone be allowed to have one. There is kind of a fine line here between right and privilege. Have gun rights in the USA simply become privleges?
Rights can be restricted, but not abolished completely. There is a right to an abortion, but lawmakers have every ability and right to make it as difficult as possible to get one. They are regulating a right. Same with guns, lawmakerw have every ability and right to make it as difficult as possible to get one.
(((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))) As far as I know there is no "right to an abortion" But there is a "right to free speech" and like a lot of "rights" it is not a free ticket e.g . profanity and hate speech
Those convicted of a serious violent crime. Those with a mental illness that makes them a danger. Most mental illnesses don't make people dangerous.
"......shall not be infringed" That means no legislation or restriction through government. Any Right that is restricted is no longer a Right, but a privilege.. Rights cannot be taken away, but privileges can be. Folks from other countries that have no Rights want to see ours reduced. Why? First , they don't have Rights and they demand ours. (Rather than claim their Rights, they demand we lose ours here in America) Secondly, they are totally reliant on their government for everything. They are subserviant to government and demand government take care of them. They are not independent but subjects. They are more like junkies, demanding everyone else around them become junkies just to make themselves feel better about being junkies.....
