Do you own a firearm?

[Redneckerz]

8 minutes ago, Impie said:

I'm assuming you mean how gun bans don't actually decrease violent crimes in the nations where they're banned.

More that the kind of crime in a nation where guns are banned is different.

 

Whether it leads to less deaths relative to the country i won't nor can't say. This is why i refer to cultural and historical differences.

[DRM-MAN]

I don't own one in particular i would like to due to the rather dangerous wildlife that live near me.

[Mr. Freeze]

Gun Control isn't a cure-all for a culture (American) that fetishizes violence, dehumanizes criminals, prioritizes strength above all else, celebrates cowboy antics, stigmatizes mental illness and drills all of these in from a young age. But it is an important first step for long-term reform. 

 

Also, owning a gun does not grant you a significant advantage in a home invasion. 

[Thorogrimm]

I don't have a gun but I have a flail

[ENEMY!!!]

I live in the UK so the answer is no - as others have mentioned it's very difficult to legally own a gun in this country. 

 

I see a fair amount of evidence that heavily regulating firearm possession reduces the extent to which we have "gun cultures" and reduces violent gun crime, relative to having a "free for all", but it is more questionable whether tightening prohibitions (as opposed to regulations) has any real effect on gun crime.  The "self defence" argument for owning a gun is pretty weak as some others have pointed out.  There's been a paper on this suggesting that requiring a licence to own a gun and banning alcoholics from purchasing guns reduces rates of homicide and robbery, and that there is weak evidence that banning established criminals and mentally ill people reduces assault rates, but that overall gun levels do not have a net positive effect on violence rates: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0734016816670457?journalCode=cjra 

 

Rather like with zero tolerance in the USA, there is a kind of confirmation bias in the UK where when authorities are seen to be draconian, people generally believe that the measures are effective at improving safety even if the evidence suggests otherwise or is at best inconclusive.

 

I have had bruising experiences of being barred from attending shooting clubs at all because of being mildly visually impaired.  There are no laws against visually impaired people attending shooting clubs, and there are some types of shooting where my level of visual impairment wouldn't make a great deal of difference, but very often shooting clubs are afraid that if something goes wrong, our media could seize upon it as an argument for banning shooting clubs altogether, and so they err on the side of not letting the visually impaired in at all.  There are similarities with the UK's crackdown on underage drinking which led to pubs strictly requiring people under about age 30 to have a driving licence or passport in order to enter the pubs, which meant that the visually impaired have no option but to carry their passports around or forgo going to said pubs.  Regrettably, draconian measures often have such unintended consequences, primarily at the expense of minority groups.

 

Fortunately this mild visual impairment doesn't make anybody anxious about me playing shooters with virtual guns like the Doom and Half-Life series, otherwise I would be really screwed...

[snapshot]

I do not own a firearm

[Gez]

I have two arms, but both are made out of flesh and bones, not fire.

 

Fire arms sound cool in games, but they'd be impractical. Can't sleep in a soft bed, they'd set the sheet and mattress on fire. Can't read a book without incinerating it. Besides keyboard and mouse aren't fire-resistant either. And what if you take a bath? Do you turn into an amputee?

 

I once had a shirt where a sleeve caught on fire, if that counts.

[𝕲𝖗𝖊𝖊𝖓𝖙𝖎𝖌𝖊𝖗1]

I don't own any firearms nor am I a fan of them (or gun culture in general).

However, I have fired them before and would have no problem using them to defend myself or others.

[Gokuma]

The glorious fun is in the specialty ammo.   Repack shotgun shells with old stale, hardened gummy bears.   Delightfully laugh as you shoot a hot gooey load at intruders and they scream in agony as molten gummy bears stick to their face and pull their flesh off.   Even better, use the ridiculous blue dyed ones that turn your mouth, tongue, and lips blue for a day.   Then finish them off with Dragon's Breath.

[Martin Howe]

I'm in the "UK, not allowed, don't need" crew. We have strict anti-gun laws. Even the cops are limited in what they can carry; many now have stun guns ("Tasers") and pepper spray ("Mace") but even those are considered firearms in UK law and some counties have "anti Taser" rules even for cops.

 

Ironically, though, I live in a county of high (by UK standards) legal gun ownership, in the form of shotguns. The UK is about the size of Michigan (USA) or Manitoba (CAN) and has around 100 counties. Some of these are extremely rural in population density and landscape, particularly Suffolk and Norfolk. Beccles is a small town on the border.

 

Thus there's a lot of "huntin', shootin' and fishin'", though presumably they don't use a shotgun for the latter :) Wildfowling is a very popular passtime here and the town council, which owns the town marshlands, have notices to warn walkers like myself when shooting is taking place. We have a gunsmith with a high-street workshop whose firm dates back to 1860. He's a Master Gunsmith, Law Society Expert Witness on Firearms & Ballistics, and advises various TV shows like Antiques Roadshow.

 

Actual gun crime, however, is very rare here - thankfully :)

Edited April 12, 2020 by Martin Howe

[Jello]

I view firearms as a tool. If you can, and decide to own a firearm, you need three. Some type of pistol or revolver, a shotgun, and a rifle. Your preference on the make and model is up to you, but if you can, you should have one of each. And at least 500 rounds of ammunition for each. This is my personal opinion on the matter. But it's better to be prepared than to be unprepared.

 

It's the same reason I keep a winter survival kit in my car. Same reason why when somebody at work has said "Does anyone have any jumper cables?" I can say "Yes, I do." because I keep two pairs in my vehicle, just in case one pair has a fault. I have jack-stands in the vehicle, and a hydraulic jack. I keep a hatchet, shovel, crowbar, splitting maul, pull chain, and a pry bar in there as well. There are many other tools I have that stay in the house, because I realized it's better to rely on yourself to be ready than to rely on someone else.

 

It's nice when you find yourself in a bad situation and you can fix it yourself. But being able to help someone else out feels better.

 

Going back to the original point: I view firearms as tools, not an extension of masculinity. I've known many women who love target shooting and hunting. I've personally given six women their first training in the operation of firearms. One was my mother. Four of them were extremely nervous the first time they fired a weapon, but after they fired the first shot, they really enjoyed it. My Sister-in-Law is a natural at it, usually ends up with more shots on target than I do.

 

But in the end, they're just a tool to me, but I do enjoy going out and hunting, or just doing some target shooting. Unfortunately it seems like there's quite a few people out there that just see them as an easy way to kill people. And they are; it just sucks that the rest of us have to deal with the fallout.

Edited April 13, 2020 by Jello