Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/jan/20/two-thirds-us-weapons-owners-would-defy-federal-gu/

An interesting little factoid has emerged from a new Fox News poll of U.S. voters: Personal sentiments are strong and defiant among many U.S. gun owners.

Question 46 in the wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there is a gun in the household. Overall, 52 percent of the respondents said yes, someone in their home owned a gun. That number included 65 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of conservatives, 38 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of liberals.

But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.

Click here to see the complete findings.

The poll of 1,008 registered U.S. voters was conducted Jan. 15-17.

Here is the link to the poll: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/01/18/fox-news-poll-gun-rights-and-gun-control/

I'm not at all surprised.

Oh you Americans sure do love your guns don't you!

 Commander Cain wrote:
Oh you Americans sure do love your guns don't you!

Yeah. We love freedom too.

Let's flip this around a bit. How many drinkers here would defy a federal ban on alcohol because of the number of alcohol related fatalities(which outnumber criminal gun fatalities by the way).

Relapse wrote:
Let's flip this around a bit. How many drinkers here would defy a federal ban on alcohol because of the number of alcohol related fatalities(which outnumber criminal gun fatalities by the way).

Oh you Americans sure do love your alcohol don't you!!!



Oh wait, what?

I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few advocites of banning or sevverely controling guns have driven a car after having a few, endangering others.

I think you missed the part where he was joking?


Im not surprised either. And everyone I go shooting with, myself included, agree. I wont turn in gak.

Relapse wrote:
I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.

Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!

 Hordini wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I bring alcohol into it for a couple of reasons. The first is the tie to prohibition. The second is that I suspect more than a few on these boards have driven a car after having a few.

Hey, I respect the 21st amendment. I think law-abiding citizens should have the right to own beer. But I do think that high-capacity cans (known on the street as "tall boys" or "tallies") should be restricted. I mean really, what does the average citizen need with a can that holds 16 or even 24 ounces of beer? When modified, those cans can be used for "shotgunning," allowing a beer drinker to guzzle multiple ounces in seconds! It's absurd!

Exalted.

On topic, I certainly won't be turning in any of my firearms to the government.

This whole debate is just ridiculous. Just utterly stupid.

Honest to God, the things people get all worked up about.

"Yeah, I ain't gonna let some government man take my guns!"
"Are they trying to take your guns?"
"No. But if they were I sure wouldn't let 'em!"

I don't own any genetically modified potatoes that scream if you try to peel them... but if the government banned them, I'd keep them, and to hell with you, Mr. Big Government. Because even if those potatoes were totally annoying, and they screamed all the time for, like, no reason in addition to when you try to peel them, you're not my dad, Mr. Government Man. I'm not going to listen to you because next thing I know you're going to say you need to go get a pack of smokes, and then you'll walk out into the rain and never, ever return.

 Hordini wrote:

 Commander Cain wrote:
Oh you Americans sure do love your guns don't you!

Yeah. We love freedom too.

Is that... a Canadian joke? Well, if it is I am English so it doesn't work on me. We are the oppressors after all.

Out of curiosity. Would a federal gun ban be at all possible in the States any more? The sheer quantity of people who own firearms would surely pose a daunting task for the government to impose such a law. I mean, while I would personally be all for it, what would be stopping people from simply sticking their pistol under the bedsheets regardless?

 sebster wrote:
This whole debate is just ridiculous. Just utterly stupid.

Honest to God, the things people get all worked up about.

"Yeah, I ain't gonna let some government man take my guns!"
"Are they trying to take your guns?"
"No. But if they were I sure wouldn't let 'em!"

The already restrictive gun laws in New York have been made even more restrictive recently. Gun owners there will have to give up their ten-round magazines and switch to seven-round magazines (how they're going to do that I'm not sure, since I'm sure there are plenty of guns for which seven-round magazines don't even exist currently). They have to get rid of property they bought legally, property which is legal in most other states. There are senators supporting an assault weapons ban that is even stricter than the last one. There certainly are politicians who would take away people's guns if they could.

Will the assault weapons ban be successful? Most likely not, thanks to the House of Representatives. That doesn't mean the debate is ridiculous, because people in power are talking about banning a wide variety of popular firearms.

 Lordhat wrote:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/jan/20/two-thirds-us-weapons-owners-would-defy-federal-gu/

An interesting little factoid has emerged from a new Fox News poll of U.S. voters: Personal sentiments are strong and defiant among many U.S. gun owners.

Question 46 in the wide-ranging survey of more than 1,000 registered voters asks if there is a gun in the household. Overall, 52 percent of the respondents said yes, someone in their home owned a gun. That number included 65 percent of Republicans, 59 percent of conservatives, 38 percent of Democrats and 41 percent of liberals.

But on to Question 47, addressed to those with a gun in their home: "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

The response: 65 percent reported they would "defy the law." That incudes 70 percent of Republicans, 68 percent of conservatives, 52 percent of Democrats and 59 percent of liberals.

Click here to see the complete findings.

The poll of 1,008 registered U.S. voters was conducted Jan. 15-17.

Here is the link to the poll: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/01/18/fox-news-poll-gun-rights-and-gun-control/

many would argue thats the signal for revolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
This whole debate is just ridiculous. Just utterly stupid.

Honest to God, the things people get all worked up about.

"Yeah, I ain't gonna let some government man take my guns!"
"Are they trying to take your guns?"
"No. But if they were I sure wouldn't let 'em!"

Try it. We're not Australia. Many would start a guerrilla war at that point. And no I am not joking.

 Commander Cain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Commander Cain wrote:
Oh you Americans sure do love your guns don't you!

Yeah. We love freedom too.

Is that... a Canadian joke? Well, if it is I am English so it doesn't work on me. We are the oppressors after all.

It's just a regular American joke.

 Commander Cain wrote:

Out of curiosity. Would a federal gun ban be at all possible in the States any more? The sheer quantity of people who own firearms would surely pose a daunting task for the government to impose such a law. I mean, while I would personally be all for it, what would be stopping people from simply sticking their pistol under the bedsheets regardless?

You mean like the kind of ban where they actually go house to house to confiscate people's guns, or do some sort of gun amnesty where everyone has to turn in their guns? Yeah, that's not happening.

Would anybody like to join me in my unfortunate boating accident?

 Commander Cain wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Commander Cain wrote:
Oh you Americans sure do love your guns don't you!

Yeah. We love freedom too.

Is that... a Canadian joke? Well, if it is I am English so it doesn't work on me. We are the oppressors after all.

Out of curiosity. Would a federal gun ban be at all possible in the States any more? The sheer quantity of people who own firearms would surely pose a daunting task for the government to impose such a law. I mean, while I would personally be all for it, what would be stopping people from simply sticking their pistol under the bedsheets regardless?

Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.


Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

Mattman154 wrote:
Would anybody like to join me in my unfortunate boating accident?

Wiener dogs broke in and stole everything!

 Frazzled wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:
Would anybody like to join me in my unfortunate boating accident?

Wiener dogs broke in and stole everything!

We already know you are a straw-men arms dealer for the upcomin Dachshund Krieg.

 Frazzled wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:
Would anybody like to join me in my unfortunate boating accident?

Wiener dogs broke in and stole everything!

You're lucky that high-capacity, military-style wiener dogs are banned, it could have been way worse!

I think Fraz got grandfathered in. I hear he has an old dusty high capacity wiener from way back when.

They'll never take my chia pets!

F-f-f-freedom!

 Grey Templar wrote:


Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.


Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16

Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!

 Grey Templar wrote:
I think Fraz got grandfathered in. I hear he has an old dusty high capacity wiener from way back when.

TBone is a Blackpowder wiener dog.

 Commander Cain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.


Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16

Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!

Attending a gun safety class might help too, and you wouldn't even have to ban anything.

 Commander Cain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:


Yeah, a gun ban would be impossable due to the number of guns currently in circulation.

Its also why any restrictions will have little meaningful effect on crime. The criminals already have a million bajillion guns, and access to more.


Laws on gun control put into play today only effect law abiding citizens. The criminals don't care about the law, they already have plenty of guns.

Yes, that was my thinking on the subject. It would however prevent (or help prevent) people getting their hands on them in the future not to mention the accidents that come about from irresponsible gun owners. Just yesterday a 12 year-old shot his older brother in the head and this is in Canada where their gun laws are far more rigid than that of the States. Surely restrictions would at least reduce these happenings, it is just the implementation that would be the problem.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/21/boy-12-shoots-and-kills-brother-16

Now I know that all this gun talk is way out of my league and that many on this thread will have been arguing their points for a very long time indeed but I just felt like I had to voice my opinion!

Given that that happened in Canada with severly restricted gun laws suggests a ban would NOT stop such incidences from occuring.

Just like the severe gun restrictions in Chicago don't lower crime, instead Chicago has very high crime. The same with New York.


The reason such accidents happen is stupidity. Which is just as dangerous with a gun as with kitchen knives. Or any other object. Cars, power tools, electric outlets, potato peelers...

You can't legeslate someone into observing proper safety around guns. Its something that you learn.

We have car accident awareness days in schools. The same with fire safety. Why not have gun safety? Seems to happen often enough to warrent some attention.

Have one day a year where some local law enforcement come in and give safety tips about how to properly store and handle firearms.


Break the mystique about guns. People advocate for a lower drinking age because it would remove the "cool" factor of drinking illegally. You could do a similar thing with guns.

Guns arn't toys, they are tools that need respect. This could be a much more effective way of cutting down on accidents where a kid finds a gun and accidentally shoots someone. If the kid has been taught that the gun is not something to play around with he won't touch it.

More effective than unenforceable attempts to mandate proper storage or have endless red tape for a person to excercise their constitutional rights.

Well naturally a mandatory safety course would be a great idea. I will admit ignorance and ask if there are any such classes that you are forced to take already or is it simply a case of strolling into your local Wal-mart and grabbing a gun that takes you fancy?

Pretty much the above. Although for certain guns they require a background check and a waiting period while you do.

There are also age restrictions on certain guns too. Namely pistols. A 12 year old could own a shotgun but not a .45 for example.

Some guns don't require an ID check or a waiting period. Like a shotgun at Walmart.

It all depends on the place where you are buying the gun too.

 Commander Cain wrote:
Well naturally a mandatory safety course would be a great idea. I will admit ignorance and ask if there are any such classes that you are forced to take already or is it simply a case of strolling into your local Wal-mart and grabbing a gun that takes you fancy?

In Ohio you have to take a course if you want to concealed carry, and you have to take a course to get a hunting license, but just to buy a gun, there is not required course. There are plenty of optional courses too, and to be honest, you can have someone teach you basic gun safety without having to take an official course. It's really not that complicated or difficult, but it is important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Pretty much the above. Although for certain guns they require a background check and a waiting period while you do.

There are also age restrictions on certain guns too. Namely pistols. A 12 year old could own a shotgun but not a .45 for example.

Some guns don't require an ID check or a waiting period. Like a shotgun at Walmart.

It all depends on the place where you are buying the gun too.

It can also vary by state. In some states you need a permit just to own a handgun.