What's your opinion of gun control?

[Wilikon]

I don't really get where your going with this,  i mean fires are not  that rare so fire extinguishers are kind of needed,  also flat tyres,  again pretty common really so Always handy to have a spare.

Having to defend yourself against gun wielding robbers in the uk???  Not so common.

The point is to rubbish your gutless arms-length statistical approach to calculating the utility of kinetic mechanical advantage in emergency situations, and ridicule your utilitarian approach to considering the existence/desirability of the human right of armed self-defense.

Let me be clear.

Real Americans #ShootBack.
That's why our ruggedly self-reliant citizens are no longer the property of the Crown and Throne.

English Pinkos #DieCoweringAndWhimpering.
That's why they remain the helplessly infantalized property of the Crown and Throne, as their children shall also be, as since time immemorial have been their fathers, mothers, and grandparents.

This isn't about the likelihood of gun wielding robbers; if you are not free to bear arms you are a slave.

Lol,  you make me laugh, being free to bear arms isn't what makes you free from being a slave,  your American,  you should know better.

 The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade at a time when police have diverted detectives to investigate historic sex abuse and allegations against tabloid newspapers.

New figures show that the number of murders and manslaughter deaths increased by 14 per cent last year bringing the annual total to 574, or 11 deaths a week.

Officials at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the surge was concentrated in London and the South East and described it as “peculiar”.

However, police sources said contributory factors may have been the re-deployment of detectives in London – where a fifth of the additional murders took place – as well as growing violence among migrants, including organised gangs.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html

Ok,  i cant help but notice a complete lack of guns in those crimes,  do you think it would be better if the criminals have easier access to guns?  Because atm criminals don't really use guns in robberies,  the cases where guns arr  used is gang on gang violence.  If your everyday civilian has guns then the bad guys will arm up too.

So... Everyday civilians should be butchered by bad guys because it is in their nature, and they only use knives... got it.

What  I'm saying is that criminals in the uk  know they could be caught and carrying a gun carries a minimum sentence of 5 years so the majority don't take the risk to get a gun,  the ones that are intent to do damage use knives,  this lowers the risk factor significantly.

They've obviously come up with a tactic that persuades criminals to use knives instead of guns.  That's an improvement.

A significant rise in criminality (11 deaths per week average) in the UK is an improvement? Yes?

[1714615927]

1714615927

[1714615927]

1714615927

[1714615927]

1714615927

[1714615927]

1714615927

[iCEBREAKER]

being free to bear arms isn't what makes you free from being a slave

Point of information: you are wrong.

Citations:

The right to self-defense is phrased as the principle of vim vi repellere licet ("it is permitted to repel force by force") in the Digest of Justitian (6th century).

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.

[tvbcof]

9th Circuit: Americans Have No Right To Concealed Carry A Gun Outside Home


The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is ruling in favor of California’s “good cause” requirement, saying the Second Amendment does not protect a right to carry a concealed gun in public.

On February 13 2014 Breibart News reported that a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s “good cause” requirement. Thereafter–under pressure from State Attorney Kamala Harris–the court announced that it would rehear the case en banc. Today that en banc ruling resulted in the “good cause” requirement being upheld and Americans being told they have not right to carry a concealed gun in public.

The case–PERUTA V. CTY. OF SAN DIEGO–was filed by concealed permit applicants who think the “good cause” requirement infringed their Second Amendment rights in San Diego and Yolo Counties. On February 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit panel sided with the Plaintiffs, ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is, in and of itself, a sufficient cause for bearing arms for self-defense. Moreover, that it is a sufficient cause both inside and outside of one’s domicile.

The San Francisco Chronicle quoted from Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain’s majority opinion, in which he emphasized that “the right to bear arms includes the right to carry an operable arm outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense.”

But the en banc ruling went in the opposite direction, upholding the “good cause” requirement and unequivocally stating that Americans have no right to carry a concealed gun outside the home for self-defense. Writing in the majority opinion, Judge Williams Fletcher said, “We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.”


http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/06/09/9th-circuit/

How many individuals who have a license for their firearm have intentionally shot innocent people? The shootings are by individuals usually who obtain firearms illegally. Restrictive laws will only disarm the law abiding citizens, making us more likely to become victims of a crime.

Yes. They know.

'They' also know that at $15/hr a couple hundred 'protesters' can be called to beat up opposition supporters on the street.  For about the price of a cheap car a significant amount of terrorism can be purchased.  Now a law abiding citizen has a right to self defense and the 'protests', particularly in California, seem to be getting genuinely life threatening.  Furthermore the police seem to take very little interest in supporting victims who are being assaulted leaving self defense as the only option (aside from just staying home as I'm sure that some wish for.)

If the 'protesters' needed to worry about suffering injury as they try to dish it out it seems likely that even the more desperate of the hires would want more than $15/hr in compensation.  This would make 'protest' operations much more expensive for those who fund them.

[BADecker]

Why Everyone MUST Learn How To Shoot!

The “JPFO” Orlando Solution for Jihadis:

9th Edition Gran’pa Jack Booklet Released (by Arnorsson and Korwin)
Contact: Felicity Bower, 602-996-4020, info@gunlaws.com

BLOOMFIELD PRESS • GunLaws.com
4848 E. Cactus #505-440 • Scottsdale, AZ 85254 • 1-800-707-4020 Orders • 602-996-4020 • info@gunlaws.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- June 15, 2016

The just-released booklet, Why Jews MUST Learn How to Shoot, provides the answer to the global jihad, which just touched America in Orlando, Fla., killing scores of people in a gay nightclub.

Gay “infidels” are a primary target of radicalized muslims terrorizing the world. JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, a supporter of the LGBT community’s right to arms, has published the controversial monograph.

Gran’pa Jack, the main character in the illustrated booklet (the 9th in a series started by JPFO founder Aaron Zelman), advises his grandkids that everyone, not just Jews, must learn how to shoot because of all the evil in the world. As fate would have it, he specifically mentions you must know how to shoot armed jihadis, as well as other outlaws, using guns to stop them when they harm innocent people.

The booklet is written so a child can understand it, but covers topics adults may not get if they rely on so-called mainstream sources for their news and information. Guns serve invaluable roles in American society, but are only portrayed in uniformly negative ways in the old media.

Gran’pa Jack and his grandkids and friends have an educational time going to the range, learning how and why guns are useful and historic traditions for most Americans. Guns save lives, protect people and robust private firearm ownership is why America is still free. “Why don’t they teach us any of this in school?” Jack’s granddaughter asks. Gran’pa takes an honest look at the lack of education taking place in so many schools today and the role of educators as suppressors.

Jack’s black chum Leon adds candid commentary on the state of affairs in the black community, broadening the appeal, making it clear all Americans are potentially targets of attack. Bible passages are mentioned only to illustrate that the Book recognized evil exists and resisting it with force, even lethal force when absolutely necessary, is reasonable behavior, justifiable and required to preserve the precious gift of life.

Gran’pa Jack and JPFO propose the only course of action that is proven effective to thwart the jihadis and mass murderers—who always arm themselves illegally when seeking to prematurely end our lives. “YOU must learn to shoot.” As the jihad intensifies, you may come around to this view. A rogues gallery of other modern-day villains is included.

This booklet expresses JPFO’s resistance to the anti-freedom approach to safety of some public figures campaigning to diminish the public’s right to arms. Reducing your access to the quality firearms and ammo our police and military prefer, as some misguided politicians are demanding, only makes matters worse, since we face the same adversaries—as the Orlando murders showed. “The correct response to a mass murderer is not to restrict the public, but to empower the public and give us every advantage possible over potential criminals.” –JPFO Policy.

Bloomfield Press believes candidates and politicians who do not support an uninfringed right to keep and bear arms for decent regular citizens are not worthy of holding office and should be removed.

Get and read Gran’pa Jack #9, then give it to someone you love. Buy a dozen for only $20 bucks and do some good with them.

Read more at http://www.gunlaws.com/Gran%27pa%20Jack%20PR1.htm.

[iCEBREAKER]

The “JPFO” Orlando Solution for Jihadis:

Hell yeah!

JPFO4LIFE

GOA4LIFE

SAF4LIFE

"Come and take them." - King Leonidis I, Thermopylae, 480 BC

[BADecker]

The “JPFO” Orlando Solution for Jihadis:

Hell yeah!

JPFO4LIFE

GOA4LIFE

SAF4LIFE

"Come and take them." - King Leonidis I, Thermopylae, 480 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermopylae

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae

 

[Wilikon]

 The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade at a time when police have diverted detectives to investigate historic sex abuse and allegations against tabloid newspapers.

New figures show that the number of murders and manslaughter deaths increased by 14 per cent last year bringing the annual total to 574, or 11 deaths a week.

Officials at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the surge was concentrated in London and the South East and described it as “peculiar”.

However, police sources said contributory factors may have been the re-deployment of detectives in London – where a fifth of the additional murders took place – as well as growing violence among migrants, including organised gangs.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html

Ok,  i cant help but notice a complete lack of guns in those crimes,  do you think it would be better if the criminals have easier access to guns?  Because atm criminals don't really use guns in robberies,  the cases where guns arr  used is gang on gang violence.  If your everyday civilian has guns then the bad guys will arm up too.

[helloeverybody]

A significant rise in criminality (11 deaths per week average) in the UK is an improvement? Yes?

When you compare to the usa then yes.


edit:- my editing of the chart was not very good, you can see it here better if you wish

Code:

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

STAT    United Kingdom    United States    HISTORY
Believes crime increasing in the past 3 years    53.35
Ranked 75th.    65.22
Ranked 44th. 22% more than United Kingdom    
Crime levels    48
Ranked 42nd.    55.84
Ranked 30th. 16% more than United Kingdom    
Drugs > Opiates use    0.9%
Ranked 1st. 58% more than United States    0.57%
Ranked 3rd.    
Fear of crime > Feels safe walking alone > At night    50.72
Ranked 47th. 21% more than United States    41.84
Ranked 60th.    
Fear of crime > Violent hate crime    27.22
Ranked 49th.    32.55
Ranked 31st. 20% more than United Kingdom    
Justice system > Punishment > Capital punishment (last execution year)    1,953
Ranked 1st.    2,014
Ranked 1st. 3% more than United Kingdom    
Murders with firearms per million    0.236
Ranked 44th.    32.57
Ranked 10th. 138 times more than United Kingdom    
Prisoners    78,753 prisoners
Ranked 15th.    2.02 million prisoners
Ranked 1st. 26 times more than United Kingdom    
Total crimes    6.52 million
Ranked 2nd.    11.88 million
Ranked 1st. 82% more than United Kingdom    
Total crimes per 1000    109.96
Ranked 4th. 3 times more than United States    41.29
Ranked 22nd.    
Violent crime > Intentional homicide rate    1.17
Ranked 74th.    4.7
Ranked 7th. 4 times more than United Kingdom    
Violent crime > Murder rate    722
Ranked 34th.    12,996
Ranked 9th. 18 times more than United Kingdom    
Violent crime > Murder rate per million people    11.68
Ranked 94th.    42.01
Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom    
Violent crime > Murders    722
Ranked 34th.    12,996
Ranked 9th. 18 times more than United Kingdom    
Violent crime > Murders per million people    11.68
Ranked 94th.    42.01
Ranked 43th. 4 times more than United Kingdom

being free to bear arms isn't what makes you free from being a slave

Point of information: you are wrong.

Citations:

The right to self-defense is phrased as the principle of vim vi repellere licet ("it is permitted to repel force by force") in the Digest of Justitian (6th century).

The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.

Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.

I cant really take your arguments seriously when all the information you use to back up your claims are at the very least 100 years old. What was relevant back then is not relevant now a days .

[iCEBREAKER]

I cant really take your arguments seriously when all the information you use to back up your claims are at the very least 100 years old. What was relevant back then is not relevant now a days .

The right to self defense does not get old and die.

Are you a public school educated millennial or what?

That's not excuse for being ignorant.  Here, let me help by educating you about a case from just 8 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment."

"The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense."

[TheButterZone]

A bit of research I just did after getting tired of people lying about the UK having less violent crime than the US.
 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do Crimes recorded by the police: "Acts causing harm or intending to cause harm to the person, injurious acts of a sexual nature and acts against property involving violence or threat against a person" (not sure if they include intentional homicide since that is a separate option) - England & Wales #1 in 2011, 754,168. Add in Northern Ireland & Scotland to cover the entire UK, 33,494 and 20,145 respectively, you get 807,807.
 
According to https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2/intermediate.do?&method=forwardResult "EU 2011 Population and Housing Census" United Kingdom had 63,182,180 residents. They didn't separate the UK into the different countries like the crime stats. So after putting total population and the violent crime figures above into http://mcpcr.com/per-capita-crime-calculator/ there were 1278.536131548484 instances of violent crime per 100k people in the UK in 2011.
 
US estimated population 311,591,917 in mid-2011 according to http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm - US estimated violent crimes 1,203,564 in 2011
according to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime . So after putting totals of estimated population and violent crimes in http://mcpcr.com/per-capita-crime-calculator/ there were 386.2629080971956 instances of violent crime per 100k people in the US in 2011. IIRC I read somewhere that FBI OVERESTIMATES violent crime, too.
 
386.2629080971956/1278.536131548484=0.302113408112587 or 30.2% of the violent crime per capita in the US that the UK has.
 
I know where I want to live.

[helloeverybody]

I cant really take your arguments seriously when all the information you use to back up your claims are at the very least 100 years old. What was relevant back then is not relevant now a days .

The right to self defense does not get old and die.

Are you a public school educated millennial or what?

That's not excuse for being ignorant.  Here, let me help by educating you about a case from just 8 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"(id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment."

"The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense."

Ok you've quoted one case that's relevant to america and your trying to push that as a worldwide motion?  We are all aware that America has some crazy ideas but that doesn't mean it stands in other countries.  I mean you guys are actually afraid of your government and have a whole load of conspiracy theories about why you need guns.  Anyway im not arguing against self defense, i don't know why you brought that up.  What I'm saying is in the uk guns are not needed as a form of self defense.

 The murder rate in England and Wales has risen sharply for the first time in a decade at a time when police have diverted detectives to investigate historic sex abuse and allegations against tabloid newspapers.

New figures show that the number of murders and manslaughter deaths increased by 14 per cent last year bringing the annual total to 574, or 11 deaths a week.

Officials at the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the surge was concentrated in London and the South East and described it as “peculiar”.

However, police sources said contributory factors may have been the re-deployment of detectives in London – where a fifth of the additional murders took place – as well as growing violence among migrants, including organised gangs.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/12112024/Violent-crime-jumps-27-in-new-figures.html

Ok,  i cant help but notice a complete lack of guns in those crimes,  do you think it would be better if the criminals have easier access to guns?  Because atm criminals don't really use guns in robberies,  the cases where guns arr  used is gang on gang violence.  If your everyday civilian has guns then the bad guys will arm up too.

You looked like you were going somewhere with what you were saying about gun crime in the uk but then you linked to a nice graph about crime in Australia.  

A bit of research I just did after getting tired of people lying about the UK having less violent crime than the US.
 
http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do Crimes recorded by the police: "Acts causing harm or intending to cause harm to the person, injurious acts of a sexual nature and acts against property involving violence or threat against a person" (not sure if they include intentional homicide since that is a separate option) - England & Wales #1 in 2011, 754,168. Add in Northern Ireland & Scotland to cover the entire UK, 33,494 and 20,145 respectively, you get 807,807.
 
According to https://ec.europa.eu/CensusHub2/intermediate.do?&method=forwardResult "EU 2011 Population and Housing Census" United Kingdom had 63,182,180 residents. They didn't separate the UK into the different countries like the crime stats. So after putting total population and the violent crime figures above into http://mcpcr.com/per-capita-crime-calculator/ there were 1278.536131548484 instances of violent crime per 100k people in the UK in 2011.
 
US estimated population 311,591,917 in mid-2011 according to http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/uspopulation.htm - US estimated violent crimes 1,203,564 in 2011
according to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime . So after putting totals of estimated population and violent crimes in http://mcpcr.com/per-capita-crime-calculator/ there were 386.2629080971956 instances of violent crime per 100k people in the US in 2011. IIRC I read somewhere that FBI OVERESTIMATES violent crime, too.
 
386.2629080971956/1278.536131548484=0.302113408112587 or 30.2% of the violent crime per capita in the US that the UK has.
 
I know where I want to live.

So you think I'm lying about this?

Uk is well known to catalogue the slightest thing as a violent crime,  the majority of gun crime catalogued in the uk is actually people being arrested for bb guns and air rifles.  Also your links directly contradict mine but you share borders with Mexico and the uk is an island but you think the uk is more violent?  Have you been to the UK?

[Slow death]

I am agree that people should choose whether to buy or not a weapon

I especially feel safer having a gun, people have always had the spirit of superiority and a gun makes everyone the same, it may seem crazy what I'm saying, but I've seen many people being a battered, raped, being killed only for pleasure, if I had a gun could deffender these people, not in order to kill the rapist, but in the sense that the violator would be afraid to know I have a gun, women are raped because they are fragile before the violators, but if they how to protect would not violated.

I think guns are a good defense for the "weak" and can make difference, who was already robbed, understand WHAT I mean!

[RankoYS]

The government needs to be much more strict about the gun control.
Even people with criminal records can legally get a gun and that's crazy.

[honglien]

The issue isn't gun control, it's not getting people the proper mental care they need. If people could afford to see a professional to get help they may not turn to violence. That being said I do believe there needs to be a more thourough process of background and mental check before being able to purchase any weapon.

[Semidetached]

If everybody had guns then everybody could defend themselves against maniacs and psychopaths that want to cause harm to yourself or other people. Pretty simple concept is it not? Some killer with mental illness and violence would be put down in the act.

[helloeverybody]

If everybody had guns then everybody could defend themselves against maniacs and psychopaths that want to cause harm to yourself or other people. Pretty simple concept is it not? Some killer with mental illness and violence would be put down in the act.

Sure,  just like if all countries had nukes whenever a rogue country decided to blow up another country everyone else could blow up the rogue country.  So pretty simple,  the world is a better place if everyone has nukes.

If guns are hard to get access to then why make it easy by letting everyone have the?  Again  this doesnt really count for america  because everyone and their dog has a gun.

[Wilikon]

If everybody had guns then everybody could defend themselves against maniacs and psychopaths that want to cause harm to yourself or other people. Pretty simple concept is it not? Some killer with mental illness and violence would be put down in the act.

Sure,  just like if all countries had nukes whenever a rogue country decided to blow up another country everyone else could blow up the rogue country.  So pretty simple,  the world is a better place if everyone has nukes.

If guns are hard to get access to then why make it easy by letting everyone have the?  Again  this doesnt really count for america  because everyone and their dog has a gun.

It is simple. Some people believe humans are good. Others believe humans are born evil and should never be trusted. If you own a way to defend yourself you believe it is because you are bad. What most logical human beings here are trying to tell you is... Bad people do no need guns to harm you because they are bad people.

Yes. The world is better place because a lot of nations have nuke.

You said everyone and their dog has a gun. By dog did you mean female dog? A knife cannot save a woman against a man twice her size. A gun put her on equal level. The gun is the ultimate equalizer for women.

You already knew all of this. Sadly you'll need to experience this terrible truth yourself or by one of your loved ones to understand. Something I do not wish upon you.


The KKK began as a gun-control organization. Before the Civil War, blacks were never allowed to own guns. During the Civil War, blacks kept guns for the first time – either they served in the Union army and they were allowed to keep their guns, or they buy guns on the open market where for the first time there’s hundreds of thousands of guns flooding the marketplace after the war ends. So they arm up because they know who they’re dealing with in the South. White racists do things like pass laws to disarm them, but that’s not really going to work. So they form these racist posses all over the South to go out at night in large groups to terrorize blacks and take those guns away. If blacks were disarmed, they couldn’t fight back.


http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/gun-control-was-historically-about-represssing-blacks.html

[Spendulus]

The issue isn't gun control, it's not getting people the proper mental care they need. If people could afford to see a professional to get help they may not turn to violence. That being said I do believe there needs to be a more thourough process of background and mental check before being able to purchase any weapon.

This is undoubtably the silliest post yet on this thread.  Look at what you are saying and please consider revising it.

First, you argue that "mental care" exists and is effective against not just mental illness but wrong social thinking.

Second, you attribute as cause the lack of money to get "mental care," no more or less.

Third, you suggest that government investigations need to be deeper.

So your solution.


Government "mental care."
Government subsidizing the cost of Government "mental care."
Government expanding "background and mental checks."

[cutesofttoy]

Doubt if the govt going to ban for real as they pay heavily to politicians

[carlisle1]

guns can be use for self defense it's purpose is not actually to kill but if it's necessary to kill someone just save many person or many live then you have to do it . but the government and the authorities should be strict of giving a permission to someone who want to own a fire-arms .