What's your opinion of gun control?

[bitcoinboy12]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.   

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single day of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

The jury can say "no guns ever" but unless they're willing to personally hold the perp at gunpoint in 6-12 member, 24/7/365 rotation for the rest of his life, they're not going to be able to stop him from having a gun outside a prison.

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been. Why would he be worse if he had lived? Besides, jury people aren't completely stupid. They would take into account the perp's history in their decision and judge accordingly.
2. The simple point of gun control is to take guns away. The extended point is to control the people. Already Chicago and New York are trying to control people based on what they think a person is going to do, that he might do a criminal act in the future. This is dangerous thinking on the part of officials. A person is innocent until he makes himself guilty. You and I just might be on a watch list, ready to lose our freedom for something we haven't done. Is that what you want?

If we all armed ourselves, we would have mutual respect for each other. Those of us who didn't have this respect would be dead like the hatchet-perp. But there would be far fewer perps, because they would know that every next guy just might fight back with the gun that he had, because everybody had guns. The perps would all be dead, or too afraid to be perps, and they just might change their lives around to be honest people, just so they could live.

But with some simple gun control you could save countless lives by not allowing people who are likely to commit atrocities from legally obtaining firearms.   There will still be people  with gun,   just not those that are likely to use them to harm others.  The main reason criminals can get hold of guns so easily is because you have no licensin. 

Isn't that exactly what the jury would be ordering in the case where it was necessary? Cops gun down more people than anybody else. Yet we don't take their property from them. Why take the property of anyone else?

I guess whichever law they are planning to create for this, they better have it more particular with the cops. These guys got way more issues than civilians owning guns. But yea, i am so pro against tougher restrictions in owning guns.

[1714624620]

1714624620

[1714624620]

1714624620

[1714624620]

1714624620

[TheButterZone]

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been.

False premise. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. Use any deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder, and you are equally as bad of a crook as any other crook who uses any other deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder.

I missed that the only legitimate death penalty, the instant death penalty in lawful self-defense, was administered by the Good Samaritan. Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

[BADecker]

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been.

False premise. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. Use any deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder, and you are equally as bad of a crook as any other crook who uses any other deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder.

I missed that the only legitimate death penalty, the instant death penalty in lawful self-defense, was administered by the Good Samaritan. Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

Okay. Anybody can kill anybody passing him while walking down the sidewalk, without much or any training, if the murderer is fast enough.

In our little story, it was assumed that the perp would be taken into custody if he lived. Then, hopefully the jury would do its job in court.

Gun control? Anybody can kill anybody. Place everybody in strait-jackets and let robots feed us and wipe our behinds. That way we won't be able to hurt anybody. How much people control do some naive nuts want?

[TheButterZone]

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been.

False premise. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. Use any deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder, and you are equally as bad of a crook as any other crook who uses any other deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder.

I missed that the only legitimate death penalty, the instant death penalty in lawful self-defense, was administered by the Good Samaritan. Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

Okay. Anybody can kill anybody passing him while walking down the sidewalk, without much or any training, if the murderer is fast enough.

In our little story, it was assumed that the perp would be taken into custody if he lived. Then, hopefully the jury would do its job in court.

Gun control? Anybody can kill anybody. Place everybody in strait-jackets and let robots feed us and wipe our behinds. That way we won't be able to hurt anybody. How much people control do some naive nuts want?

The jury can do its job in court but ONLY in court, as it cannot control anything further than what what each juror says in their verbal and written verdict. A jury can say "we find the defendant guilty of attempted murder and order him to serve life in prison without possibility of parole, probation, pardon, or commutation" but the government can then immediately release him following that verdict and not only allow him to continue his criminal violence through neglect, but also affirmatively give him instruction and material support in committing more criminal violence.

It's naive to think there can be ANY effective people control without at least 1:1, round the clock supervision by volunteers.

[BADecker]

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been.

False premise. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. Use any deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder, and you are equally as bad of a crook as any other crook who uses any other deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder.

I missed that the only legitimate death penalty, the instant death penalty in lawful self-defense, was administered by the Good Samaritan. Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

Okay. Anybody can kill anybody passing him while walking down the sidewalk, without much or any training, if the murderer is fast enough.

In our little story, it was assumed that the perp would be taken into custody if he lived. Then, hopefully the jury would do its job in court.

Gun control? Anybody can kill anybody. Place everybody in strait-jackets and let robots feed us and wipe our behinds. That way we won't be able to hurt anybody. How much people control do some naive nuts want?

The jury can do its job in court but ONLY in court, as it cannot control anything further than what what each juror says in their verbal and written verdict. A jury can say "we find the defendant guilty of attempted murder and order him to serve life in prison without possibility of parole, probation, pardon, or commutation" but the government can then immediately release him following that verdict and not only allow him to continue his criminal violence through neglect, but also affirmatively give him instruction and material support in committing more criminal violence.

If the government is the prosecutor in the case, the judge might be able to override the jury to some extent. But if the prosecutor is a man in a common law court of record, the jury has the final say. The judge is only a magistrate, completely separate from the Tribunal - Corpus Juris Secundum Volume 25 Section 344.

[Spendulus]

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been.

False premise. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon. Use any deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder, and you are equally as bad of a crook as any other crook who uses any other deadly weapon to attempt or successfully commit murder.

I missed that the only legitimate death penalty, the instant death penalty in lawful self-defense, was administered by the Good Samaritan. Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

Has the jury reached a verdict?

Yes we have, Your Honor.

Will the Undead please rise?

[Wilikon]

All you people who are against gun control seem to be under the impression that once you have gun control you have to give up your guns, Thats not the case. Gun control is simply putting in stricter checks or disallowing certain people for instance mentally insane or convicted criminals from having guns. Gun control is a must in any civilised country.

Law Enforcement Sources: Gun Used in Paris Terrorist Attacks Came from Phoenix



One of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed criminals to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile “gun-walking” operation known as “Fast and Furious.”

A Report of Investigation (ROI) filed by a case agent in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) tracked the gun used in the Paris attacks to a Phoenix gun owner who sold it illegally, “off book,” Judicial Watch’s law enforcement sources confirm. Federal agents tracing the firearm also found the Phoenix gun owner to be in possession of an unregistered fully automatic weapon, according to law enforcement officials with firsthand knowledge of the investigation.

The investigative follow up of the Paris weapon consisted of tracking a paper trail using a 4473 form, which documents a gun’s ownership history by, among other things, using serial numbers. The Phoenix gun owner that the weapon was traced back to was found to have at least two federal firearms violations—for selling one weapon illegally and possessing an unregistered automatic—but no enforcement or prosecutorial action was taken against the individual. Instead, ATF leaders went out of their way to keep the information under the radar and ensure that the gun owner’s identity was “kept quiet,” according to law enforcement sources involved with the case. “Agents were told, in the process of taking the fully auto, not to anger the seller to prevent him from going public,” a veteran law enforcement official told Judicial Watch.

It’s not clear if the agency, which is responsible for cracking down on the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, did this because the individual was involved in the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme. An ATF spokesman, Corey Ray, at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters told Judicial Watch that “no firearms used in the Paris attacks have been traced” by the agency. When asked about the ROI report linking the weapon used in Paris to Phoenix, Ray said “I’m not familiar with the report you’re referencing.” Judicial Watch also tried contacting the Phoenix ATF office, but multiple calls were not returned.

The ATF ran the Fast and Furious experiment and actually allowed criminals, “straw purchasers,” working for Mexican drug cartels to buy weapons at federally licensed firearms dealers in Phoenix and allowed the guns to be “walked”—possessed without any knowledge of their whereabouts. The government lost track of most of the weapons and many have been used to murder hundreds of innocent people as well as a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, in Arizona. A mainstream newspaper reported that a Muslim terrorist who planned to murder attendees of a Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas last year bought a 9-millimeter pistol at a Phoenix gun shop that participated in the ATF’s Fast and Furious program despite drug and assault charges that should have raised red flags. Judicial Watch has thoroughly investigated Fast and Furious and has sued the Obama administration for information about the once-secret operation.



http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/law-enforcement-sources-gun-used-paris-terrorist-attacks-came-phoenix/



--------------------------------------
You want insane people (Operation Fast & Furious) to be in charge of gun control?

Why?

[omegaaf]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

[TheButterZone]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

Yes, only the army and hunters need guns to hunt disarmed humans with and commit genocide against us.

Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

Has the jury reached a verdict?

Yes we have, Your Honor.

Will the Undead please rise?

LMFAO

[helloeverybody]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

Yes, only the army and hunters need guns to hunt disarmed humans with and commit genocide against us.

Until the perp comes back as a zombie, there's no need to discuss whether a jury would need to guarantee he will never possess any deadly weapon again. Which no jury as we know it could, as everything can be a deadly weapon, so the safest place to put a living or undead attempted or successful murderer is prison, where he will only be able to murder other murderers, and people who volunteer to guard murderers.

Has the jury reached a verdict?

Yes we have, Your Honor.

Will the Undead please rise?

LMFAO

I don't know what  country your from but is this something you worry about where you come from?  I  can only assume you live in some war torn third world country because   anywhere else i  wouldn't expect anything like this to happe.  I  assumed when we  are talking about gun control we were talking about first world country'. 

[BADecker]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

All the people of the States are the militia of the States. The militia needs guns to be effective these days... like for hunting Muslims... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520524.0.

[helloeverybody]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

All the people of the States are the militia of the States. The militia needs guns to be effective these days... like for hunting Muslims... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520524.0.

Its a pitty you weren't there or  any of your militia.    You could have simply shot and killed all3 of the perpetrators ,  the 8 year old, 10 year old and 13 year old.Maybe that's too  good for them though?  or if only the little girl  had a  gun and she could have shot them all.     

[virtualx]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

Alternative: Everyone needs guns and is part of the Army (like Swiss)

[Tanic]

No one needs guns personally. Just the army needs to for war. Otherwise unless your a hunter there is no reason to have a gun personally.

Having guns personally makes some people to feel saved especially if they live in areas with high level of criminal. How else to protect themselves if government can't do that?

[abugseuf]

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?

but for your kind information i want to tell you that USA is the major gun supplier country. they are almost suppling weapons to all over the world. and they have a good income from that trading side. so how can you say that they are the  the supporter of gun control programe?

[TheButterZone]

but for your kind information i want to tell you that USA is the major gun supplier country. they are almost suppling weapons to all over the world. and they have a good income from that trading side. so how can you say that they are the  the supporter of gun control programe?

The US government needs to give guns to violent criminals so it can "justify" "gun control". See "Operation Fast & Furious".

[Spendulus]

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?

but for your kind information i want to tell you that USA is the major gun supplier country. they are almost suppling weapons to all over the world. and they have a good income from that trading side. so how can you say that they are the  the supporter of gun control programe?

What you want to tell people and what is true may differ.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2012/06/big-six-arms-exporters/

[burnez]

We need guns that do not kill, that's all.
Hoping in technology to bring a social change soon. everyone should be able to protect themself, yes. but the way it is right now makes killing too easy. imho even the police should use paralizers and not guns, at this point. this would give to the people the time at least to see if the person was guilty or not. it's not just about the person (even if I do believe life matters a lot), it's about who has the gun: you may regret too much what you did (maybe you were actually wrong even if the situation was insane) and no one should live with the guilt of 'I killed someone but I was just trying to be safe' when there are so many other options. the actual sistem is incredibly old-world, western-situation.

[BADecker]

Media Silent as Concealed Carrier
Stops Mass Shooting in Progress
at a South Carolina Nightclub

Lyman, SC – A remarkable incident is being largely ignored by corporate mainstream media – as it doesn't fit their "guns are bad" narrative. A man with a concealed carry license stopped a mass shooting in progress outside a South Carolina nightclub in the early morning hours on Sunday after an assailant opened fire in a crowd of people, striking and injuring three people.

Jody Ray Thompson, 32, faces multiple attempted murder charges stemming from the incident, according to Spartanburg County deputies. None of the victims' injuries were life-threatening, according to police.

"His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg," Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Police said that after getting into an altercation with another man, Thompson pulled out a firearm and began firing into a crowd of people that had gathered near the front of the club around 3:30 a.m., according to WISTV-10.

As Thompson was firing at the crowd of people, one of his would-be victims, with a concealed carry permit, was able to return fire, striking Thompson in the leg and ending the mass shooting in progress.

...

Had this legal concealed carrier not been present when this gunman began opening fire, this incident would have likely had much more deadly consequences. The reality is that a legal concealed carrier at ground zero of an attack can stop the carnage sooner.

When good people carry firearms it saves lives, not that the media will tell you that.

Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/07/01/media-silent-as-concealed-carrier-stops-mass-shooting-in-progress-at-a-south-carolina-nightclub/.

[Blackmet]

At my opinion gun control is okay, cause it's prevent many accidents, many people have trouble with emotions and head, they should not own guns at my opinion.