# Should everyone have a gun?



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

A friend of mine and me had this debate thought it would be interesting to see your ideas. Generally speaking exception felons, psychologically or mental unstable, or criminals. Do you think everybody should own a gun?

Further debate in discussion, should everybody have a HANDgun? OR a rifle? What do you think and why?


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

jakeleinen1 said:


> A friend of mine and me had this debate thought it would be interesting to see your ideas. Generally speaking exception felons, psychologically or mental unstable, or criminals. Do you think everybody should own a gun?
> 
> Further debate in discussion, should everybody have a HANDgun? OR a rifle? What do you think and why?


the way our world is , probably. Maybe start with all teachers, and school administration in elementary schools.

BUT, I have to vote NO.
I have personal friends ,acquaintances, who I know should not carry a gun.
But maybe to own and keep a rifle or long gun in the closet would be ok ,just in case the redcoats are coming,lol.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

The word "should" bothers me because it implies the next step; required. Granted a few places in the U.S. have proposed laws requiring private individuals to have guns available to them and one, Kennesaw, GA, passed just such a law in 1982. But they had good reason to do this.

Other good reasons would be if the social order in the nation really broke down and people banded together in small communities for their very existence. In a case like this, they should require all able members of their community to have arms and to go armed.

In my opinion, whether or not someone chooses to own and carry a firearm, except in extraordinary conditions, is totally up to them. If the area in which they live becomes a nightmare of crime and violence, then they may pay the price for their refusal should they not want to have firearms. I don't feel sorry or have compassion for people like this if the were in a position to see it coming and refused to take the necessary precautions.

So should in normal times and normal situations is a bit of a harsh word. I would say that it is prudent for folks to have arms.


----------



## fast20 (Sep 12, 2011)

just as gun control tries to keep me from my right to keep and bear arms... any law that requires you have a gun, violates by right to not be armed if i so choose... same evil of contol imo... i choose to carry, if you dont its your choice... just llike i choose not to hunt, but would if i needed to.... its your choice to hunt, great for you... i have no problem with that either.... im using the word YOU in general not directed at anybody on the forum or the original poster...:smt1099


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

Haha,

I don't mean it should be required par se, I just mean do you believe it is foolish to NOT have one? Maybe its obvious because since you guys do all have them obviously its uniform

Im not for the government requiring anything of any person in matters of being a private free citizen


----------



## SMann (Dec 11, 2008)

To answer the question as asked, no.


----------



## Arney (Sep 22, 2012)

question is not about the right to bear arms, but the ability and suitability of the individual and his/her rights.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

I voted no. In my lifetime, I have known more than a few people who I would not be comfortable around, knowing they owned, possessed, or had access to, a firearm. Most had simple anger-management issues that they were never able to get a handle on; others had severe maturity problems or chemical addictions that would make firearms ownership or possession dangerous, for themselves or others nearby. A couple were just not intelligent enough; they were unable to follow simple instructions, and would probably shoot themselves or someone else in fairly short order.

Don't get me wrong, here; I also know better than to propose any way to screen folks like these out of owning/buying firearms, because I believe any law or other tool able to do so would rapidly be turned against ALL gun owners by ardent anti-gunners. Luckily, many folks of the types I listed above choose to NOT own firearms; I think that in many cases, they realize (consciously or unconsciously) that it would be a bad idea, so they don't do it.


----------



## LePetomane (Oct 20, 2012)

I voted "no" as well. There are plenty of law abiding citizens out there who shouldn't own a gun. Anger issues and blatent stupidity among other reasons. I was in the checkout line at a local sporting goods store the other day purchasing ammo. The clerk politely asked me if I was sure this was the correct ammo. The guy behind me (also purchasing ammo) piped up and said, "if you unsure of the caliber of ammo you need then you should not own a gun."


----------



## Ala Tom (Apr 1, 2011)

You get an unbalanced view of the need for gun ownership by reading these forums. We are all interested in guns for hunting and/or target shooting in addition to self/home defense. As a youth I was interested in guns as a hobby - not for hunting and not for serious competition target shooting but just "how do they work?" "how hard is it to shoot accurately?" etc when I was in college (engineering). I had friends who were also interested and I joined a shooting club where I mainly did bench rest shooting at 200 yards or more. I was involved in hand loading to support the bench rest shooting. Then I got married to a woman who did not like guns, got a real job and moved to a state where shooting was not a popular sport. For 45 years the guns sat in the closet. One, a Browning .380, stayed in a dresser drawer in the bedroom in case someone broke in. Nobody did. Then I had a scare. At 11:30 on a Saturday night suddenly there was no water in my house. I stepped outside and heard sounds of people moving around and talking in whispers. I got my .380 and looked more extensively around the neighborhood. It was young people, drunk from a party and playing with the some city water valves. I learned you can be drawn out of the safety of your locked home by someone turning of your water supply. I also learned that my .380 had deteriorated requiring some work. I traded in my old guns that were no longer practical and bought some new modern guns.

So that got me into self/home defense guns. I also started noticing the high rate of home invasions where the victims were old white-haired people like me!

But many people who look young enough to handle themselves can live in a high level of safety and have no need of a gun. If people have no interest and no experience, they don't need to get a gun unless their status changes. Now I go to a local gun store and shooting range quite frequently. I see many old people getting instruction in shooting for the first time. 

As gun owners we should answer people's questions about guns - where to get instruction, where to buy guns, etc. Not everyone should own guns but almost everyone should be able to get them if they want them.


----------



## MoMan (Dec 27, 2010)

I voted no for pretty much all the same reasons listed above: I too have friends I would not want to see with a gun.


----------



## berettabone (Jan 23, 2012)

I am for open carry and conceal carry, but I wouldn't want to see everyone doing it, just like ownership......


----------



## FloridaGuy (Sep 23, 2012)

I votes "yes" but I mean only the people that are allowed by law to own them.


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

Ala Tom said:


> Not everyone should own guns but almost everyone should be able to get them if they want them.


I like this


----------



## jakeleinen1 (Jul 20, 2011)

MoMan said:


> I voted no for pretty much all the same reasons listed above: I too have friends I would not want to see with a gun.


I definitly know what you guys are talking about when you say you have "friends" who you would not want to see own a gun.

I will say these people usually do not remain my friends. lol


----------



## rex (Jan 27, 2012)

"Not everyone should own guns but almost everyone should be able to get them if they want them."

That's the way it is now,hit a certain part of town with cash and you're good.The problem is this isn't where the focus of gun control is being put.Nope,disarm the law abiding or total rule can't be achieved.

To the OP,no,as much as I want to say otherwise.


----------



## Sgt45 (Jun 8, 2012)

I also say no. There are far too many progressive "I want the government to everything for me" types that have no business owning a firearm. That would be most of my relatives. These stick their head in the sand, I know so much more than you stupid Republicans idiots, deserve all that comes to them when the SHTF actually does arrive. It probably includes 90% of the people in my city - oh joy.


----------



## Harryball (Oct 10, 2012)

Sgt45 said:


> I also say no. There are far too many progressive "I want the government to everything for me" types that have no business owning a firearm. That would be most of my relatives. These stick their head in the sand, I know so much more than you stupid Republicans idiots, deserve all that comes to them when the SHTF actually does arrive. It probably includes 90% of the people in my city - oh joy.


Dem progressives are the same as the Rep progressives neither party is worth a damn.

Should everyone own a gun. Short answer, No.....


----------



## TheReaper (Nov 14, 2008)

I voted no due to the large amount of morons in our country.


----------



## acepilot (Dec 16, 2012)

Everybody has one in Switzerland and look how it's working for them. Did they get involved in WWII? Nobody messes with them. :mrgreen:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

No one except for me.

I feel much safer that way. :mrgreen:


----------



## RadarContact (Nov 25, 2012)

Here's my analogy: it sorta falls along the same lines as "should everyone do their own home repair or construction?"

I think if someone feels comfortable doing so, either possesses or is willing to acquire the necessary skills to do so, and wants to bear the responsibility for the safety of his workmanship...then sure, go for it. To all others, no. Rely on a friend who does, or depend on professionals.


----------



## Smitty79 (Oct 19, 2012)

Everyone shouldn't have one. But gun safety and basic marksmanship should be taught in school. Too many people vote against gun rights because they are ignorant of guns. They think that guns some how reach out and hurt people all by themselves.


----------



## berettatoter (Sep 1, 2011)

I voted yes. That way the idiots would start weeding themselves out a little faster, now that technology has been keeping natural selection at bay for the last several decades.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

I voted no there are to many stupid people out there.


----------



## celt (Dec 24, 2012)

If you knew my boss you'd vote no also.


----------



## DJ Niner (Oct 3, 2006)

Smitty79 said:


> Everyone shouldn't have one. But gun safety and basic marksmanship should be taught in school. Too many people vote against gun rights because they are ignorant of guns. They think that guns some how reach out and hurt people all by themselves.


An excellent point!


----------



## Ricky59 (Dec 21, 2011)

I voted no...
You can't hand someone a wrench and make them a mechanic ...
Or hand them a gun and make them a shooter ...


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

I voted yes, mainly because I defend the idea that every citizen should start out with the same basic right to own the implements necessary to provide for his own self defense.

Obviously, there are people out there who lack the competence to be a responsible gun owner. Whether they have undocumented criminal tendencies, undiagnosed mental problems, or are just too stupid to be trusted with potentially dangerous machines, there are always going to be some of them out there wreaking havoc on polite society, with guns, automobles, kitchen appliances, workshop tools, or whatever.

The problem is that a country that guarantees individual freedoms always has a government that suffers from the same maladies as any other government, in any other country - corruption and incompetence. Mostly, the people who actually _want_ positions of power, within the government, are the very people who should not have them, because they usually believe in their own superiority, and because they tend to have agendas that don't necessarily appeal to or benefit the majority.

What that means, relative to this subject, is that the people who we would naturally look to, to judge the competency of a citizen to have a gun, cannot be trusted to make honest and informed judgements, and can usually be counted on to make decisions that will do more to serve their personal agendas than to protect the individual freedoms of the people they purport to be representing. Most of them rise to such high positions through clever media skills and poll-watching expertise, rather than through any specific qualifications or experience that they possess. In other words, they are often wrong, or dishonest, in their assessments, because their first priority is furthering their own agendas.

So, in my opinion, every adult who wants a gun should be allowed to buy one, until such time as it can be shown, through his own actions or behavior, that he is a danger to others. Obviously, that means we are going to continue to have tragedies at the hands of these kinds of folks, as we always have. But no government can improve that situation without undermining the liberties of the majority, who have done nothing to disqualify themselves from gun ownership. That is just a sad fact that we have to live with and adapt to, if we are to keep our individual freedoms. We cannot trust political opportunists to make 'preventive' laws, because they rarely work, and because every potential human failing cannot be anticipated and prepared for.

You will never hear me say, "There ought to be a law..."


----------



## SMann (Dec 11, 2008)

Bisley said:


> I voted yes, mainly because I defend the idea that every citizen should start out with the same basic right to own the implements necessary to provide for his own self defense.


So you voted yes, but meant no. The question was should everyone have a gun, not should everyone have the right to own a gun. Two very different questions.


----------



## joebeasley (Jul 1, 2012)

I voted no. Far too many idiots in the world. In my opinion of course.


----------



## JMessmer (Dec 30, 2012)

I don't think that I want the leftist gangster on the road next to me to have a gun. Only republicans should have guns.(Just kidding, although I've heard worst ideas...)


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

SMann said:


> So you voted yes, but meant no. The question was should everyone have a gun, not should everyone have the right to own a gun. Two very different questions.


Thanks for explaining that to me. Your reading comprehension is obviously superior to mine.

Answering the question, as asked, results in answers that seem to suggest the opposite of what I wanted to say.


----------



## plp (Jan 13, 2013)

I voted 'other' because this is not a straight yes or no question. 

At the federal level I vote yes, all people should at least have the right to acquire, keep and bear arms whether or not they choose to actually have one or not. 

At the state, county, and municipal level I say no, because people through their actions may prove themselves incapable of upholding that right, just as many at that level prove themselves incapable of the privilege of driving an automobile. 

As the density of population increases in urban areas, interaction and conflict are the natural result. For the well being of the public domain, I can see situations where individual rights to carry a firearm may not be in the best interests of all involved. Las Vegas comes to mind, too much booze and too much aberrant behavior to trust everybody to play nice.

That's why in Las Vegas I always left mine in a lockbox bolted to the floorboard of my truck. Get a half hour out of Vegas in any direction and a handgun for varmint control is just practical common sense.


----------



## rolandrock (Sep 21, 2012)

Unless you are prepared to accept the responsibility and investment of time and money learning how to effectively use it, secure it and retain it, no.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

plp said:


> At the state, county, and municipal level I say no, because people through their actions may prove themselves incapable of upholding that right, just as many at that level prove themselves incapable of the privilege of driving an automobile.
> 
> As the density of population increases in urban areas, interaction and conflict are the natural result. For the well being of the public domain, I can see situations where individual rights to carry a firearm may not be in the best interests of all involved. Las Vegas comes to mind, too much booze and too much aberrant behavior to trust everybody to play nice.


So, the solution is to restrict the rights of people who behave responsibly, because some irresponsible person _might_ carry while drinking and start shooting?

That is exactly the same mindset liberal politicians have, in the current controversy.


----------



## berettabone (Jan 23, 2012)

I would think that it would be more reason to carry.....


plp said:


> I voted 'other' because this is not a straight yes or no question.
> 
> At the federal level I vote yes, all people should at least have the right to acquire, keep and bear arms whether or not they choose to actually have one or not.
> 
> ...


----------



## plinker56 (Jan 29, 2010)

Voted (other), Not sure that everyone "should" own a gun. I'm pro 2nd ammedment all the way but there are folks that for one reason or another do not need to own a gun. If they qualify lawfully and can pass proficiency testing and voluntarily want a gun good. But only if they want a gun, "should" should not mean mandatory.


----------

