What's your opinion of gun control?

[guitarplinker]

Did I say to bar them?  I said they are nuts IMHO.  I don't see how putting bunch of old rifles in a gun safe satisfies anyone.  Stamp collections are easier to enjoy.

I view guns as tools.  I'm sure there are people who collect many other things that are dangerous.  Poisonous snakes for example. Would you say they are nuts?  I would.  Would I defend their right to do so, you bet.

Seriously, if you are really using guns, you just need few of them and be proficient with them., IMHO.

What's the point to own 10+ rifles, all in different calibers, and none of them zero-ed in?  I find every gun is unique, so shooting only few lets you become in tune with the guns you have, and put 4"@50 yards groups from your Glock, 0.5"@100 yards with your rifle. 

BTW, shooting competitions such as IPSC and others really help to hone your skills, so if you are faced with a situation you can react and shoot from your muscle memory.

I've seen gun collections, 200+ guns, some exotic calibers, never shot in ages, why would you need it.  It is junk.  Just donate them to a museum, so that other people can view them.  What is the point to lock them up in a gun safe?

I wouldn't call all gun collectors nutty. Some of them definitely are, but others just have an appreciation for old, or special firearms to them. Stamp collections might be easier for you to enjoy, but for others guns are far more enjoyable to collect. You could also argue that stamp collectors are nutty, because why would you want to collect books full of stamps just for them to sit around and collect dust? I can understand owning a firearm collection, especially if the weapons are special to you. Plus, with a large collection, every time you go to the range you can switch up what you shoot with, and I think that's more fun than constantly shooting the same gun or two for a few years straight.

[1714203296]

1714203296

[1714203296]

1714203296

[1714203296]

1714203296

[1714203296]

1714203296

[Spendulus]

Did I say to bar them?  I said they are nuts IMHO.  I don't see how putting bunch of old rifles in a gun safe satisfies anyone.  Stamp collections are easier to enjoy.

I view guns as tools.  I'm sure there are people who collect many other things that are dangerous.  Poisonous snakes for example. Would you say they are nuts?  I would.  Would I defend their right to do so, you bet.

Seriously, if you are really using guns, you just need few of them and be proficient with them., IMHO.

What's the point to own 10+ rifles, all in different calibers, and none of them zero-ed in?  I find every gun is unique, so shooting only few lets you become in tune with the guns you have, and put 4"@50 yards groups from your Glock, 0.5"@100 yards with your rifle. 

BTW, shooting competitions such as IPSC and others really help to hone your skills, so if you are faced with a situation you can react and shoot from your muscle memory.

I've seen gun collections, 200+ guns, some exotic calibers, never shot in ages, why would you need it.  It is junk.  Just donate them to a museum, so that other people can view them.  What is the point to lock them up in a gun safe?

I wouldn't call all gun collectors nutty. Some of them definitely are, but others just have an appreciation for old, or special firearms to them. Stamp collections might be easier for you to enjoy, but for others guns are far more enjoyable to collect. You could also argue that stamp collectors are nutty, because why would you want to collect books full of stamps just for them to sit around and collect dust? I can understand owning a firearm collection, especially if the weapons are special to you. Plus, with a large collection, every time you go to the range you can switch up what you shoot with, and I think that's more fun than constantly shooting the same gun or two for a few years straight.

The very first time I got a Colt Walker 1850s replica, then went to the range, got the spot at the far end, spent what must have been 20-30 minutes carefully loading black powder, balls and percussion caps, then pointed that monster downrange and pulled the trigger, there was this gigantica KA BOOOMMM, and all those 20 some people with their liitle 9s and 45s and 357s, they just sort of stopped and looked down that way, where the smoke was clearing.  And I was thinking, DAMN!  People really used these things?  Man that is scary. 

I can see some collecting...

[TECSHARE]

[mOgliE]

Difference between guns and drugs, which is incredibly subtle I know, please try to think about it with your little amount of intelligence, is that drugs are made for yourself. Whereas guns are made to shoot at others.
In the first case you take the decision to harm yourself. But it's your body, why couldn't you do whatever the fuck you want with it?
In the second case, you're going to use a gun, which means you're a potential threat to absolutely anyone...

And on your little first picture, you forgot the "we get most mass shooting that all the other Western countries in the world added since 2000 but we don't see any correlation with guns" part ^^

[mOgliE]

I believe that gun control will not work.

First, I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it. Guns themselves can't do anything it is the person with the gun that decides where the bullet goes.

Great. But a tool designed solely in order to kill or harm someone is called... A weapon. With your argument we could totally say "we should legalize missile ownership. It's a tool.

Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people will not make them less violent. It might make them more violent.

? What? How taking a gun away can make them more violent?

Violent people can use anything to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people is no more than just taking one out of a thousand more ways to hurt, rob, or kill you.

The very little difference being that you have much less victims and much highest chances to survive if they use a knife than if they use a gun...

Also, gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.

Yeah because comparing alcohol to weapons is totally legit. I mean absolutely everyone can build dozens of firearms in there garage like they produces alcohol during prohibition  

However, outlaws and gang members decided to keep making alcohol anyway. It was obvious that the Prohibition had failed. The latest ban that is having problems is the illegal drug bans.

Now many of us know that most drugs that are illegal are bad to people’s health when used. However, when drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth became illegal outlaws and gangs saw a new business and started a war with many governments especially America. Outlaws produced and sold drug illegally to the public. Even today outlaws keep making them, selling them, using them, and innocent people are still getting killed over them.

Outlaws will still find ways to smuggle, produce, and use guns to their advantage. The only thing that gun control will do is make it harder for law obeying citizens to get guns. This is one important thing to remember. Once something is outlawed only outlaws get it.

That is why gun control will not work.

Experience prove you wrong. In gun free countries, the vilains of course still have guns. But on average they have much less, much less dangerous, and use them much less than in USA.
Of course outlaws will have guns. Difference being only 10% of them will have one. And only small handgun for 98% of those 10%. That makes a difference you know?

[TECSHARE]

Difference between guns and drugs, which is incredibly subtle I know, please try to think about it with your little amount of intelligence, is that drugs are made for yourself. Whereas guns are made to shoot at others.
In the first case you take the decision to harm yourself. But it's your body, why couldn't you do whatever the fuck you want with it?
In the second case, you're going to use a gun, which means you're a potential threat to absolutely anyone...

And on your little first picture, you forgot the "we get most mass shooting that all the other Western countries in the world added since 2000 but we don't see any correlation with guns" part ^^

None of your argument changes the fact that banning something is not effective in eliminating it. All that happens is a black market is created and the contraband still flows.

As far as your second "point", I am sure that the fact that the vast majority of these shootings happen in "Gun Free Zones" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Also you have zero understanding of how statistics work. Of course there are more mass shootings in the US than other countrys. WE HAVE OVER 350 FUCKING MILLION PEOPLE HERE. When adjusted for population, the US has comparable rates of mass shooting deaths to many European countries, and is not the worst by far. Therefore your claim that the US has more mass shootings is shown to be false once adjusted for the difference in population. This claim is along the lines of idiots who compare the gun deaths in the US to the gun deaths in the UK without adjusting for population difference and think they are making a valid point.



http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
Ban guns, people start stabbing each other. The data shows that criminals are more willing to cut or stab some one with a knife than to fire a gun at them in a robbery, as a result you will just have more knife violence rather than criminals using guns as a prop to threaten people. Additionally banning guns would threaten our ability to defend our bodies, and what gives you the right to tell people they can not defend themselves? Criminals will always have access to guns, it is a fact. If only the criminals would just obey the laws we would all be safe!

[KennyR]

Gun control has to be given much importance to the American countries than Asian countries. Because you could see most incidents taking place were in the America and western nations. Also the persons were mostly teenagers. Only such unnecessary use can be avoided only if strong regulations were made at the right moment.

[anaderwan]

People need discipline. Gun control is pointless if people have bad anger issues.

[fireneo]

Governments are known to go against their people.

Nowadays there's usually a way to prevent that:
don't vote for extremists or braindead people

That's kind of tricky. They are all we ever get nowadays. 

[fireneo]

Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.

Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?

I think people in general should have the right to protect themselves. If owning a gun is the way to do it, then so be it.

[AzibLala007]

Generally, those who support gun control are usually stereotyped as being liberals and Democrat. Some say that the Republicans own the anti gun control issue, as the Democrats own pro gun control. So, who does have ownership? Does one side fully advocate one position?

Those that support gun control argue that there need to be stricter laws and regulations on who and why someone should own a gun. “Many people that are for gun control laws believe that getting a gun is too easy.  Individuals with misdemeanor criminal convictions, DUI offenses, past domestic abuse restraining orders, and histories of voluntary commitment to psychiatric institutions can and do obtain permits legally” (The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). These people believe that stricter gun regulations should be made and enforced, and that people with criminal backgrounds or troubling psychological history should not be able to own a gun. Many people are petitioning for a criminal background check if someone wants to purchase a gun. “There are bills pending on Capitol Hill that would force checks for all sales, and there is considerable bipartisan support for this kind of measure” (The New Yorker). People that are pro gun control believe that the United States will be safer if less people are able to acquire guns.

[trollercoaster]

Gun control is a tool to control the population, it doesn't prevent crime that is a load of shit, it punishes and makes victims of good law abiding people.

I unfortunately reside in a country with strict "gun control"
there's still shootings, home invasions and violent crime committed daily, it's a tremendous failure & I could go and buy an illegal gun tonight if it's what I desired.

[TECSHARE]

Generally, those who support gun control are usually stereotyped as being liberals and Democrat. Some say that the Republicans own the anti gun control issue, as the Democrats own pro gun control. So, who does have ownership? Does one side fully advocate one position?

Those that support gun control argue that there need to be stricter laws and regulations on who and why someone should own a gun. “Many people that are for gun control laws believe that getting a gun is too easy.  Individuals with misdemeanor criminal convictions, DUI offenses, past domestic abuse restraining orders, and histories of voluntary commitment to psychiatric institutions can and do obtain permits legally” (The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence). These people believe that stricter gun regulations should be made and enforced, and that people with criminal backgrounds or troubling psychological history should not be able to own a gun. Many people are petitioning for a criminal background check if someone wants to purchase a gun. “There are bills pending on Capitol Hill that would force checks for all sales, and there is considerable bipartisan support for this kind of measure” (The New Yorker). People that are pro gun control believe that the United States will be safer if less people are able to acquire guns.

The vast majority of what you just described is already law on a national level in the USA. Those quotes are largely bullshit designed to make it sound as if most of those controls are not already in place.

[jonathgb25]

Gun control is a tool to control the population, it doesn't prevent crime that is a load of shit, it punishes and makes victims of good law abiding people.

I unfortunately reside in a country with strict "gun control"
there's still shootings, home invasions and violent crime committed daily, it's a tremendous failure & I could go and buy an illegal gun tonight if it's what I desired.

That is a poor control your country have. In our country where freedom is given to you, you can buy guns without going legal process and you can fire anybody and nobody will suit you because our government does not know how to get rid of this aholes.

[Sithara007]

To me, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that gun control should be implemented. The government should take strict actions against the person who do not know how to use the tool. Definitely it can make fear on others. Also we should be alert on kids. It should be strictly banned in each and every country.

[BADecker]

To me, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that gun control should be implemented. The government should take strict actions against the person who do not know how to use the tool. Definitely it can make fear on others. Also we should be alert on kids. It should be strictly banned in each and every country.

In America, the government is of the people. If someone takes action against these people who love owning guns, it can't be the government.

[criptix]

2009-2015 study snip

Can you tell me what happens if the study goes longer then 6 years especially when in this 6 years most of the mass shootings were caused by IS terrorist?

Norway is nr 1 with 77 deaths - anyone remember breivik?

Let us see a study from 1966-2012:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.

Adjusting for population, the difference was smaller: The number of public mass shooters for the U.S. was 65% higher per capita than the per capita rate for the Philippines.

Edit

One more article which gives more information about the studies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

[BADecker]

2009-2015 study snip

Can you tell me what happens if the study goes longer then 6 years especially when in this 6 years most of the mass shootings were caused by IS terrorist?

Norway is nr 1 with 77 deaths - anyone remember breivik?

Let us see a study from 1966-2012:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.

Adjusting for population, the difference was smaller: The number of public mass shooters for the U.S. was 65% higher per capita than the per capita rate for the Philippines.

Thank you for showing this study and chart.

Americans more than any country except tiny Switzerland have gun freedom. Americans came from, and have the family training of, people from most of these countries on the chart. Assuming that the chart is accurate, it is totally incorrect to suggest that it is gun freedom that is doing it. Here's the way it works.

People with ancestry from all these other countries
+ people with gun freedom
+ people with high mass shootings
+ few gun-control countries with anywhere near these high mass shooting stats
+ government and one-worlders wanting to take away gun freedom worldwide
= inside jobs, all of them, in America.

[TECSHARE]

To me, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that gun control should be implemented. The government should take strict actions against the person who do not know how to use the tool. Definitely it can make fear on others. Also we should be alert on kids. It should be strictly banned in each and every country.

The problem with your logic is that in the US gun rights are inalienable because they are there primarily to protect the people FROM the government. If the government is the one dictating those strict regulations you are calling for then that protection from totalitarianism is lost.

2009-2015 study snip

Can you tell me what happens if the study goes longer then 6 years especially when in this 6 years most of the mass shootings were caused by IS terrorist?

Norway is nr 1 with 77 deaths - anyone remember breivik?

Let us see a study from 1966-2012:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.

Adjusting for population, the difference was smaller: The number of public mass shooters for the U.S. was 65% higher per capita than the per capita rate for the Philippines.

Edit

One more article which gives more information about the studies:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

So you get to exclude terrorist activity, but the gang violence which is the VAST MAJORITY of gun violence in the US still should be included?

[criptix]

^

It was stated that gang violence and homicides are excluded else the US would have like 100-150 k deaths per year through gun violence alone.

Btw. Im actually for having guns but even more for tight enough gun controls that no wrong people get it. Also i believe strongly that there is no need to have "war making" weapons legal. (Semi to full automatic weapons)
Go hunting and on shooting tournaments all you want i just dont want to see ppl with g36 or uzis running around on the street thanks.