NationStates Jolt Archive

I started the last forum about fire-arms, and posts were being thrown about in all directions, so to narrow it down, i have set up a poll to get a result

Yes

I say no, but there should be full and complete registration of all weapons sold

I voted no, since I have enjoyed being a member of a rifle club in the past. We shot at paper targets for the pupose of sport, in a nationwide league. The regulations are heavy already, even someone with a gun license can't take a weapon anywhere without the local authorities being aware of it. Banning them (here anyway) would be senseless.

For the record, I live in England, where pistols are already banned.

Dammit, you switched words. I thought the question was still should they be legal. Anyway to switch my choice?

I voted no, since I have enjoyed being a member of a rifle club in the past. We shot at paper targets for the pupose of sport, in a nationwide league. The regulations are heavy already, even someone with a gun license can't take a weapon anywhere without the local authorities being aware of it. Banning them (here anyway) would be senseless.

For the record, I live in England, where pistols are already banned.
i think guns for farmers and recreational shooting is ok, but just selling guns to the public that could be used for any purpose i think is a big NO :sniper:

Dammit, you switched words. I thought the question was still should they be legal. Anyway to switch my choice?
soz about that, aslong as we get the majority vote... :)

Depends on the weapon. A hunting rifle, fine. A semi-automatic assault rifle, an automatic shotgun, UZIs, the works, those should be VERY illegal.

My family altogether owns 6 firearms, one of which is mine. None of them are anything but hunting rifles and shotguns.

I'm from Canada, where there's a fair amount of firearms, but VERY few are of the aforsesaid sort. Even pistols are heavily restricted.

I personally don't hunt, but use my rifle for target shooting.

Again, in which country? Is it each of our own countries? Because that would be pretty vague, I think that people in different countries will behave differently with them. But ill vote yes because im against guns altoghether :)

Actually, tbh...

I'm pro-firearms in terms of Recreational Hunting, but not in so far as they should be available to all citizens.

No, don't illegalize firearms.

I saw a statistic somewhere (from an unbiased source, I know that much) saying the following:

Indianapolis, Indiana has less gun control (and a murder rate of only 4 per 100,000 people), compared to DC, which has more gun control (and a murder rate of 17 per 100,000 people)

I started the last forum about fire-arms, and posts were being thrown about in all directions, so to narrow it down, i have set up a poll to get a result

No, but thinking they should be illegal should be punishable by removal of your vote.

Guns are only a problem in the hands of criminals, and only an armed populace can defend themselves from criminals. Illegalizing guns takes them away from law-abiding citizens and gives them no chance to defend themselves from criminals. We need to make it easier for law abiding citizens to own guns, we need them to be armed so they can defend themselves effectivley. That means we all should have the right to own most types of firearms and to carry them on our person if we so desire unless you happen to be a felon. I am in favor of background checks, and want to ensure felons can't get their hands on guns.

Liberals have the problem all wrong, if we concentrate on the criminals themselves, its better. We need to use the death penalty more often on other violent criminals.

Superpower, that statistic is entirely irrelevant. There are way too many factors involved in that to simply say that is gun control that has the effect. How do you explain that the New England area, a liberal strong hold, has a lower divorce rate than the Bible Belt? Maybe it could be that there are dozens of factors that go into these things and that you can't say that because one area has 2 factors that they must be related...

I'm definitely opposed to banning guns. I do believe that you should have to take some type of test to prove you won't be negligent with it. I have heard too many horror stories about innocent people being shot because some one was an idiot with a gun. You're more likely to shoot your own family member than you are to shoot a burglar.

Superpower, that statistic is entirely irrelevant. There are way too many factors involved in that to simply say that is gun control that has the effect. How do you explain that the New England area, a liberal strong hold, has a lower divorce rate than the Bible Belt? Maybe it could be that there are dozens of factors that go into these things and that you can't say that because one area has 2 factors that they must be related...

I'm definitely opposed to banning guns. I do believe that you should have to take some type of test to prove you won't be negligent with it. I have heard too many horror stories about innocent people being shot because some one was an idiot with a gun. You're more likely to shoot your own family member than you are to shoot a burglar.

I agree with the idea of having test to prove that you arent negligent with an sort of weapon, and I also think that you should be retested every so often.
I now have a confession to make. I am British, which means that I have never lived in a society where guns are legal. I am ,however, a cadet and am therefore am trained in a number of weapons, including the SA-80 Assault Rifle, L86A2 LSW (Light Support Weapon), and have recieved partial instruction in a Browning 9mm pistol. We have it drilled into us how important safety is, and although I plan on joining on the British Army (best army in the world to all the Americans out there, you know I'm right), I never want to fir a gun in anger at a person.

the only people who voted yes were those tree hugging pussies that dont know just how important firearms really are...

and i agree that there should be a test for it so none of those dumbasses out there can just buy a gun because they think they are cool if they shoot someone...

oh yeah and pardon my french but this topic just gets me heated! :headbang:

I agree with the idea of having test to prove that you arent negligent with an sort of weapon, and I also think that you should be retested every so often.
I now have a confession to make. I am British, which means that I have never lived in a society where guns are legal. I am ,however, a cadet and am therefore am trained in a number of weapons, including the SA-80 Assault Rifle, L86A2 LSW (Light Support Weapon), and have recieved partial instruction in a Browning 9mm pistol. We have it drilled into us how important safety is, and although I plan on joining on the British Army (best army in the world to all the Americans out there, you know I'm right), I never want to fir a gun in anger at a person.

This is my safety <points to his own index finger>

Depends on the weapon. A hunting rifle, fine. A semi-automatic assault rifle, an automatic shotgun, UZIs, the works, those should be VERY illegal.

My family altogether owns 6 firearms, one of which is mine. None of them are anything but hunting rifles and shotguns.

I'm from Canada, where there's a fair amount of firearms, but VERY few are of the aforsesaid sort. Even pistols are heavily restricted.

I personally don't hunt, but use my rifle for target shooting.
Auto shotgun ... I havent seen that one before

No, but thinking they should be illegal should be punishable by removal of your vote.

Guns are only a problem in the hands of criminals, and only an armed populace can defend themselves from criminals. Illegalizing guns takes them away from law-abiding citizens and gives them no chance to defend themselves from criminals. We need to make it easier for law abiding citizens to own guns, we need them to be armed so they can defend themselves effectivley. That means we all should have the right to own most types of firearms and to carry them on our person if we so desire unless you happen to be a felon. I am in favor of background checks, and want to ensure felons can't get their hands on guns.

Liberals have the problem all wrong, if we concentrate on the criminals themselves, its better. We need to use the death penalty more often on other violent criminals.

But what do you want the guns for. Defending yourself is no argument at all. Any criminal using a gun has the gun loaded, cocked and aimed at you, what are you going to do with your gun? Any criminal not using a gun does not require that you use one to defend yourself. If it is just a question of freedom to do as you please then if we were to make penguin statuettes on top of the refridgerator illegal, would you want one?

The questions about the death penalty etc. are not relevant to a discussion on the legality or otherwise of firearms.

Auto shotgun ... I havent seen that one before i think he means a semi auto shotgun

It is possible to make a semi-auto shotgun, but I've never heard of a full auto.

The people you vote yes have no idea what humans are capable of doing. Look at the country of Colombia. They have a huge problem with guerrillas. Did you know that most of the population does not own firearms? Why was the current President so successful when he was govener? Because he issued firearms to all of the farmers. No wonder the guerrillas have attempted to assassinate him twelve times.

Why didn't Japan invade the U.S.? Because we don't need the National Guard or the Army to kill invaders. We can do it from our front porches.

Automatic shotgun is the term commonly used for a semi-auto.

Several fully automatic shotguns have been made.

A modified version of the Remington 1100 was made full auto.
The Pancor Jackhammer (a prototype only).
The H&K CAWS
and the Atchisson Assault 12.

yes. illegal (i voted no cos im a retard and didn't read the question... :headbang: )

reason: guns are too lethal to be used by just anyone - even with stringent background checks etc.
see thread http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=388526 for a pretty long arguement about it...

But what do you want the guns for. Defending yourself is no argument at all. Any criminal using a gun has the gun loaded, cocked and aimed at you, what are you going to do with your gun? Any criminal not using a gun does not require that you use one to defend yourself. If it is just a question of freedom to do as you please then if we were to make penguin statuettes on top of the refridgerator illegal, would you want one?
*claps*


edit: sorry for double posting... again

Automatic shotgun is the term commonly used for a semi-auto.

Several fully automatic shotguns have been made.

A modified version of the Remington 1100 was made full auto.
The Pancor Jackhammer (a prototype only).
The H&K CAWS
and the Atchisson Assault 12.

And the Daewoo USAS-12. Worth noting also that the 'Assault 12' was only ever an experimental model.

This is my safety <points to his own index finger>

Oh, you are so original Delta Sgt. Norm Hooten. Yes, thts right, I have read Black Hawk Down, and seen the film! So unoriginal

It is possible to make a semi-auto shotgun, but I've never heard of a full auto.

The people you vote yes have no idea what humans are capable of doing. Look at the country of Colombia. They have a huge problem with guerrillas. Did you know that most of the population does not own firearms? Why was the current President so successful when he was govener? Because he issued firearms to all of the farmers. No wonder the guerrillas have attempted to assassinate him twelve times.

Why didn't Japan invade the U.S.? Because we don't need the National Guard or the Army to kill invaders. We can do it from our front porches.

Why didn't Japan invade? Oh yeah, sure you could defend it from your own porches, bu you don't have any choice in the matter. Didn't you know that U.S forces can only be used outside the continental U.S in any kind of military action. I believe the only unit exempt from tht is Delta Force, which the government officially denies its existence.

Depends on the weapon. A hunting rifle, fine. A semi-automatic assault rifle, an automatic shotgun, UZIs, the works, those should be VERY illegal.
C
My family altogether owns 6 firearms, one of which is mine. None of them are anything but hunting rifles and shotguns.

I'm from anada, where there's a fair amount of firearms, but VERY few are of the aforsesaid sort. Even pistols are heavily restricted.

I personally don't hunt, but use my rifle for target shooting.

I should point out that, despite the propaganda, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic assault rifle. Assault rifles are, by definition, machine carbines. The term was coined by Adolph Hitler when the German Army began issueing machine carbines to troops. Those how recieved the weapons were underwhealmed by them. They felt that the smaller and less powerful weapon was inadadaquite. Calling the "assualt rifles" was meant to bolster morale and reduce rifle envy.

As it turns out, machine carbines are very useful in close quaters combat, especially in urban terrain. They're good for trench storming, as well. Flexibility, light weight, and the fact the long range rifle enguagements are rare make the machine carbine a perfect choice for militaries.

The semi-automatic versions of these weapons are of little use and combat and have no use in crime, however. Carbine cartriges have far less stoping power than full size hunting cartriges. In military weapons, this is offset by fully automatic or burst fire. One bullet might not stop a target, but five probably will. Without automatic fire, a semi-auto carbine is far less deadly than a hunting rifle.
There is also the fact that the common 5.56mm NATO round is designed to wound, rather than to kill. The idea being that wounding a soldier ties up resources needed to get him of the battlefield and take care of him. Because of the resource disparity between criminals and police, this tactic is useless to criminals.
Because a center mass shot from a 5.56mm NATO round is not likely to be fatal, it isn't suitable for criminal activity. A center mass shot from a full caliber hunting cartrige is likely to be fatal, however. It is also more likely to pierce armor because it is propelled by greater force. A criminal won't be marching for several hours a day, so weight isn't so much of a factor.

Personally, if I were to go around killing people and getting into shootouts with the police, I would use a semi-automatic hunting rifle capible of accepting a detachable magizine. The reliable killing power of a hunting cartrige makes it the best choice when fully automatic weapons aren't available and weight isn't an issue.
If I were to enter a shooting competition, however, I would choose a military style carbine. The customability and lower recoil of the modern carbines make them far superior in shooting matches.

Yes. Destroy them all.

I voted no, since I have enjoyed being a member of a rifle club in the past. We shot at paper targets for the pupose of sport, in a nationwide league. The regulations are heavy already, even someone with a gun license can't take a weapon anywhere without the local authorities being aware of it. Banning them (here anyway) would be senseless.

For the record, I live in England, where pistols are already banned.

Fair enough, for sport or on a property, rifles are fine. Allowing people to own uzis and the like in cities is insane. People use high firepower weapons to kill people, simple as that - that's their pupose, for crying out loud.

the only people who voted yes were those tree hugging pussies that dont know just how important firearms really are...


Important for what?

Yes, hunting is necessary. but otherwise no. Civilians don't need guns.

Liberals have the problem all wrong, if we concentrate on the criminals themselves, its better. We need to use the death penalty more often on other violent criminals.

Certainly not. The death penalty isn't going to stop anything. Do you think a murderer is in the right state of mind to care about the consequences of their actions? Do they fear death? Most likely not. By executing more people, you aren't fixing anything. You're getting rid of the symptoms, but people have already died so it fixes nothing. "An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind"

The way to go about it is to nip the problem in the bud by attacking the root causes of the violence. I'm no expert on the subject to determine what these problems are and how to fix them, but it's easy to see that capital punishment fixes nothing.


Fair enough, for sport or on a property, rifles are fine. Allowing people to own uzis and the like in cities is insane. People use high firepower weapons to kill people, simple as that - that's their pupose, for crying out loud.

My stance exactly.

Fair enough, for sport or on a property, rifles are fine. Allowing people to own uzis and the like in cities is insane. People use high firepower weapons to kill people, simple as that - that's their pupose, for crying out loud.

Hopefully, you understand the distinction between the Uzi sub-machine guns and their semi-automatic civilian counterparts. The former, I'd hate to see in the hands of a criminal. The later I'd love to see in the hands of a criminal.
The Uzi is a great SMG but it isn't particulary suited to semi-automatic use. The civilian Uzis aren't as craptastic as some of other SMG style pistols, but their primary function is looking cool and dangerous. Compared to a real pistol, the semi-automatic Uzi's and all other SMG style pistols are practically worthless.

Hopefully, you understand the distinction between the Uzi sub-machine guns and their semi-automatic civilian counterparts. The former, I'd hate to see in the hands of a criminal. The later I'd love to see in the hands of a criminal.
The Uzi is a great SMG but it isn't particulary suited to semi-automatic use. The civilian Uzis aren't as craptastic as some of other SMG style pistols, but their primary function is looking cool and dangerous. Compared to a real pistol, the semi-automatic Uzi's and all other SMG style pistols are practically worthless.

But why do you need to own one in the first place? If you want one that looks cool on your wall and to show off to your friends, buy a deactivated one.

It's easier to ban Uzi's and other SMG weapons outright, rather than have police decide "gee, that guy has an Uzi. It might be okay if it's a semi-auto. Hmm. But if it's an auto i have to arrest this man. EXCUSE ME SIR! Can you please fire your gun into the air in a non-threatening manner?"

i think guns for farmers and recreational shooting is ok, but just selling guns to the public that could be used for any purpose i think is a big NO :sniper:

No. And Why farmers, for protection right? Just the same reason that everyone else buys them.

But why do you need to own one in the first place? If you want one that looks cool on your wall and to show off to your friends, buy a deactivated one.

It's easier to ban Uzi's and other SMG weapons outright, rather than have police decide "gee, that guy has an Uzi. It might be okay if it's a semi-auto. Hmm. But if it's an auto i have to arrest this man. EXCUSE ME SIR! Can you please fire your gun into the air in a non-threatening manner?"

Actualy, it is very easy to tell the difference. The banned version would have a setting on the selector switch clearly marked "fully automatic".
There is also the little fact that, in the US at least, fully automatic weapons are already strictly regulated. Quite simply, you can't get one unless you pass a severe ATF/FBI background check, have permission from your local police chief, and can prove that you have a very good reason to own one.
The only other option is to know someone who just happed to rob a miliary base somewhere or have connections to illegal arms smugglers in the former Soviet Union. Either way, it ain't easy.

The number of criminals who have access to illegal machine guns is so low that less than 1% of all homocides are commited with them. Yet, they are probably the most effective homocide weapons, especialy against police officers are armed gangsters.

As for legaly owned macine guns, only a single violent crime has ever been commited by one and, in that case, the murder was a corrupt police officer.

Generally, if a police officer sees a civilian with an Uzi it will be semi-automatic, unles said civilian is making a movie, in which case it will be full of blanks.

No. And Why farmers, for protection right? Just the same reason that everyone else buys them.

How else are they supposed to slaughter livestock (either for food, or if injured, etc.)?

I can just picture a farmer trying to kill a sow with a rusty knife.

Actualy, it is very easy to tell the difference. The banned version would have a setting on the selector switch clearly marked "fully automatic".

Fair enough. But it would be hard to tell at a distance (ie. police called to an armed holdup etc.), though, I would imagine.

There is also the little fact that, in the US at least, fully automatic weapons are already strictly regulated. Quite simply, you can't get one unless you pass a severe ATF/FBI background check, have permission from your local police chief, and can prove that you have a very good reason to own one.
The only other option is to know someone who just happed to rob a miliary base somewhere or have connections to illegal arms smugglers in the former Soviet Union. Either way, it ain't easy.

That's certainly the way it should be, IMO. There's no need at all to own a fully-automatic weapon.

The number of criminals who have access to illegal machine guns is so low that less than 1% of all homocides are commited with them. Yet, they are probably the most effective homocide weapons, especialy against police officers are armed gangsters.

As for legaly owned macine guns, only a single violent crime has ever been commited by one and, in that case, the murder was a corrupt police officer.

Fair enough. I'm sure you agree that those are best left out of the public's hands (unless deactivated) though. nobody needs that much firepower. I imagine they would take any skill out of hunting. :p

No. But one should be obligated to have a permit and be able to show that if one is walking around with the firearm or wishes to buy ammunition. This permit should IMO be issued based on past behaviour,a psychological examination and an obligated course in the use, maintanence and safe-keeping of the weapon. These things would need to be re-evaluated often.
They should not be sold in general stores.

If I lived in a country where I was so scared of my fellow citizens that I felt I needed a gun, I'd move to a civilised country.

I have a junior firearm licence catetgory A and B.
---------
Category A allows me to use:
Airguns, (Including Paintball guns); rimfire rifles(other than semi-automatic); shotguns(other than semi-automatic or pump action); any combination of shotgun and rimfire rifle.
Category B:
Muzzle loading firearms; centerfire rifles(other than automatic or semi-automatic); any combination of shotgun and centerfire rifle.
It is extremely difficult to get a C or D, which includes semiautomatic shotguns and rifles, and damn impossible to get an E, which includes mortars, tear gas guns and machine guns.
---------
To apply for any gun licence you need a good reason, I live on a farm, so that was easy, but if you live in a city it is a lot more difficult if you dont go to shooting clubs.
You must correctly answer 15 out of 30 questions in a test to pass, and you also need to hand in a copy of your birth certificate. The birth certificate needs a statuatory declaration, so it needs to be signed by a cop, doctor etc.
As for handguns, they are illegal unless you use them at 3 different shooting clubs each month. You can probably tell that the gun laws are pretty tight in Australia, and I see no reason why firearms should be banned.

How else are they supposed to slaughter livestock (either for food, or if injured, etc.)?


You slaughter livestock (for food) in farms/ranches whatever? Who slaughter livestock with guns?

ok one country more in my long list of countries where I'll never eat meat.

If I lived in a country where I was so scared of my fellow citizens that I felt I needed a gun, I'd move to a civilised country.

Personally, I think I would too.

You slaughter livestock (for food) in farms/ranches whatever? Who slaughter livestock with guns?

ok one country more in my long list of countries where I'll never eat meat.

I don't know how it works exactly. But i'm hard pressed to think of better ways. I do know, however, if a farmer has a lame horse that's only going to waste away (for example), it's more humane to shoot it and that's what gets done.

A hammer. You slaughter cattle by hitting them in the head with a hammer. You slaughter chickens by strangling them. With a gun, you could end up having buller fragments stuck in the meat.

I don't know how it works exactly. But i'm hard pressed to think of better ways. I do know, however, if a farmer has a lame horse that's only going to waste away (for example), it's more humane to shoot it and that's what gets done.
Ok. Around here you would call a vet who would then kill it with a special gun made for that purpose. If the horse is not in a terrible pain that is. I understand it can sound a bit too costly and difficult (why call a vet to do something you can do yourself) but we have very strict rules for killing animals, pets, cattle or wild ones and how to handle the bodies.

Ok. Around here you would call a vet who would then kill it with a special gun made for that purpose. If the horse is not in a terrible pain that is. I understand it can sound a bit too costly and difficult (why call a vet to do something you can do yourself) but we have very strict rules for killing animals, pets, cattle or wild ones and how to handle the bodies.

I see. You have to remember though a lot of farms over here are very isolated, and calling a vet is going to be very time and money consuming. Maybe farmers have the right to give lethal injections...I couldn't tell you really. I'm a city-boy :p

A hammer. You slaughter cattle by hitting them in the head with a hammer. You slaughter chickens by strangling them. With a gun, you could end up having buller fragments stuck in the meat.

What if you shot the animal in the head (who eats cattle-heads, anyway?)? I think that would be more humane than a hammer. I know which i'd rather if I had to choose my method of execution.

I'm going with my Pandora-box theory on fire-arms.

For countries where firearms are illegal. Keep it that way.

For countries like US where there's easily accesibility of firearms.. Keep it that way. Maybe stricter laws, and better way of moderating gun licences so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Farmers needguns to protect their livestock from predators. That is the official reason why obtaining a firearms license for farmers is much easier where such licenses are required.

This is not the same as defending themselves against human criminals. Not many wild predators roam city streets to attack the town living flocks of sheep. No real need then for guns in the city.

The arguments about licensing etc. are fine but they overlook the fact that the majority of guns used in criminal activity are illegally obtained. Not from ex Soviet dealers or corrupt military personel, but stolen from the ordinary joe who may have had a license for it. If you want to keep guuns out of the hands of the criminals you have to remove guns from socety. (This includes the police)

Farmers needguns to protect their livestock from predators. That is the official reason why obtaining a firearms license for farmers is much easier where such licenses are required.

This is not the same as defending themselves against human criminals. Not many wild predators roam city streets to attack the town living flocks of sheep. No real need then for guns in the city.

The arguments about licensing etc. are fine but they overlook the fact that the majority of guns used in criminal activity are illegally obtained. Not from ex Soviet dealers or corrupt military personel, but stolen from the ordinary joe who may have had a license for it. If you want to keep guuns out of the hands of the criminals you have to remove guns from socety. (This includes the police)

I'd suspect that a lot depends on the mindset of the country or people in question. For example, I'm from Ballycrap (Ireland, really) where gun ownership is restricted basically to licensed shotguns and hunting rifles (no pistols or automatic weapons). Even then, if you were to use one of those on any human - breaking in or not - it's considered the equivalent of second degree murder. Irish people (with the exception of the paramilitary groups of various hues in the lovely north) are of the mindset that you don't pull a trigger on anyone (unless it's a shotgun loaded with corn in which case blast away and teach dem buggars an ould lesson!). Other countries may take a less charitable view on people who threaten property, but personally I don't believe hand weapons or automatic weapons of any kind should be in the hands of private citizens. Product of my own society, I guess.

In the US, half of murders are committed with firearms. But this number is significantly down (down to record lows similar to a period at the beginning of the 1960s).

We have a lower murder rate than Luxembourg, which has no legal gun ownership at all. We have a lower firearms murder rate than Luxembourg.

It's also a fairly wealthy country in the middle of the EU.

93 percent of violent crime (assault, rape, robbery) in the US is committed without a firearm. So eliminating guns will not significantly reduce violent crime in the US.

Depending on whose study you believe, between 60,000 (anti-gun study) and 2.5 million (pro-gun study) times a year, someone in the US uses a gun to stop a crime without firing a shot. So if you eliminated all guns in the US, violent crime would increase by one of those amounts (probably something in between).

US states that restrict firearm possession have higher rates of crime and murder than US states that promote concealed carry of firearms.

So, maybe it's a cultural thing. BTW, it's a myth that the US is the gun murder capital of the world.

We have a lower murder rate than Luxembourg, which has no legal gun ownership at all. We have a lower firearms murder rate than Luxembourg.


Luxembourgh is also very small. Meaning that killing one increases the number of kills per 1000 inhabitants far more then doing so in the US would...

The arguments about licensing etc. are fine but they overlook the fact that the majority of guns used in criminal activity are illegally obtained. Not from ex Soviet dealers or corrupt military personel, but stolen from the ordinary joe who may have had a license for it.

True. Which is why I want the license linked to a "how to keep it safe" course and requiring everybody walking around with a weapon to show the permit with picture. If you ban all guns it will indeed be harder for the common burglar to get one - but the hardened criminal will still have little problems. At least with license and registration the police will know in most cases where the gun came from.
And particulary in the US I doubt you could seperate the gunowners from the guns..