What's your opinion of gun control?

[Spendulus]

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?

The pen is stronger then the sword.
Just talk out conflicts, not shoot them out.

The gun is stronger than the pen.
Often people won't accept what is written.

Mass murders only successful in "gun-free zones". "Gun-free zone" signs work perfectly.

I dont think this is strictly true, there was a piece on radio 2 some time ago just after the shooting in California or wherever it was and they spoke and asked if there have actually ever been any times when a mass shooting has been stopped by a gun holder and no one phoned in to say there had. the only thing ive ever read about a legal gun holder stopping a mass shooting was the article baddecker posted earlier. Maybe it just never actuall makes the news.

I suspect that such events are downplayed.  The narrative pushed is gun control, and these events work in the opposite direction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/RYANHATESTHIS/10-POTENTIAL-MASS-SHOOTINGS-THAT-WERE-STOPPED-BY-SOMEONE-WIT?utm_term=.cn0YEv7yA#.lspDgKpEG

[1714620545]

1714620545

[1714620545]

1714620545

[1714620545]

1714620545

[1714620545]

1714620545

[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.

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?

The pen is stronger then the sword.
Just talk out conflicts, not shoot them out.

The gun is stronger than the pen.
Often people won't accept what is written.

Mass murders only successful in "gun-free zones". "Gun-free zone" signs work perfectly.

I dont think this is strictly true, there was a piece on radio 2 some time ago just after the shooting in California or wherever it was and they spoke and asked if there have actually ever been any times when a mass shooting has been stopped by a gun holder and no one phoned in to say there had. the only thing ive ever read about a legal gun holder stopping a mass shooting was the article baddecker posted earlier. Maybe it just never actuall makes the news.

I suspect that such events are downplayed.  The narrative pushed is gun control, and these events work in the opposite direction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/RYANHATESTHIS/10-POTENTIAL-MASS-SHOOTINGS-THAT-WERE-STOPPED-BY-SOMEONE-WIT?utm_term=.cn0YEv7yA#.lspDgKpEG

actuall quite an interesting read. I imqgined there must be storys of it happening its just that you never really hear of them. But like you say, maybe its just downplayed alot of the time.

[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.

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?

The pen is stronger then the sword.
Just talk out conflicts, not shoot them out.

The gun is stronger than the pen.
Often people won't accept what is written.

Mass murders only successful in "gun-free zones". "Gun-free zone" signs work perfectly.

I dont think this is strictly true, there was a piece on radio 2 some time ago just after the shooting in California or wherever it was and they spoke and asked if there have actually ever been any times when a mass shooting has been stopped by a gun holder and no one phoned in to say there had. the only thing ive ever read about a legal gun holder stopping a mass shooting was the article baddecker posted earlier. Maybe it just never actuall makes the news.

I suspect that such events are downplayed.  The narrative pushed is gun control, and these events work in the opposite direction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/RYANHATESTHIS/10-POTENTIAL-MASS-SHOOTINGS-THAT-WERE-STOPPED-BY-SOMEONE-WIT?utm_term=.cn0YEv7yA#.lspDgKpEG

It's supposedly a big problem in science; the null set (when the simpler explanation is purely malicious revisionist history/malpractice/feigned innumeracy on the part of the vast minority of researchers who've focused on self-defense pros and cons). I'm not sure if this story is true since I heard it multi-hand away from the source, but:

The other Manhattan Project during WWII was a building or condo in Manhattan, where the world's greatest minds were gathered, so government/military officials could ask them advice. One of those minds was a statistician. He was presented with an exhaustive compilation of all the places on planes that had been struck by enemy bullets, and asked where the best place to put armor was. He answered immediately: all the places where the bullet holes aren't. Because all the planes that had been downed in enemy territory and unable to be recovered for analysis, had obviously been hit in those places. For the planes that were able to be studied for bullet hole locations, the pilot/copilot might have been hit, but they survived long enough to fly their plane back for analysis.

It's not a "mass shooting" if no mass (of people) was shot, only the first 3 or less victims, and possibly the intended mass murderer themself (either self-inflicted as is wont to happen when they see a gun pointing at them, or by a Good Samaritan aka "gun nut"). The most important thing is stopping a mass murderer instantly, so emergency medical aid/transport can be rendered. Most GSWs are survivable as long as those aren't delayed.

[Spendulus]

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?

The pen is stronger then the sword.
Just talk out conflicts, not shoot them out.

The gun is stronger than the pen.
Often people won't accept what is written.

Mass murders only successful in "gun-free zones". "Gun-free zone" signs work perfectly.

I dont think this is strictly true, there was a piece on radio 2 some time ago just after the shooting in California or wherever it was and they spoke and asked if there have actually ever been any times when a mass shooting has been stopped by a gun holder and no one phoned in to say there had. the only thing ive ever read about a legal gun holder stopping a mass shooting was the article baddecker posted earlier. Maybe it just never actuall makes the news.

I suspect that such events are downplayed.  The narrative pushed is gun control, and these events work in the opposite direction.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/RYANHATESTHIS/10-POTENTIAL-MASS-SHOOTINGS-THAT-WERE-STOPPED-BY-SOMEONE-WIT?utm_term=.cn0YEv7yA#.lspDgKpEG

actuall quite an interesting read. I imqgined there must be storys of it happening its just that you never really hear of them. But like you say, maybe its just downplayed alot of the time.

I suspect this is the case because you just about never hear of "heroes."  They exist, of course.  But they don't fit somehow.  Consider, also, what exactly causes "local news" to become "national or international news."  There's a filter there, a selection process. 

Some years ago there was a case in my city where a gang came into the courtyard of an apartment complex after a teenager.  Six of them, all armed.  What they didn't know was that the kid's dad was an Army sniper on leave.  He was very polite and asked them to leave, but when they didn't and the shooting started, there were six gang members crawling off or limping off, all shot in the wrists or ankles with a 22LR.

Maybe I'm nuts but that to me is perfect international or national news.  There's a hero, evil thwarted, teenager saved, and a sort of humor to it all. 

But they NEVER pick items like that.

[Cresciuanto]

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?

but most of the people are keeping it just for fun and just for showmen t. it in turn create problems. it can make a person more emotional. and in very minor issues it make people to use it. it is a fact that the use of gun is too easy to use. but when you use it against one one then it becomes beg issue to control it.

[hermanhs09]

In my opinion,it is the most stupid thing that the government forbiddens civil people to use guns.
Criminal can always get the gun,he does not care about penalties,police etc. But you can't as a rightful citizen.
And the police will never get there on time,you can shoot somebody 10 times before they will arrive.

[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.

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?

but most of the people are keeping it just for fun and just for showmen t. it in turn create problems. it can make a person more emotional. and in very minor issues it make people to use it. it is a fact that the use of gun is too easy to use. but when you use it against one one then it becomes beg issue to control it.

Bullshit projection.

[helloeverybody]

In my opinion,it is the most stupid thing that the government forbiddens civil people to use guns.
Criminal can always get the gun,he does not care about penalties,police etc. But you can't as a rightful citizen.
And the police will never get there on time,you can shoot somebody 10 times before they will arrive.

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean that civil people don't get access to guns.  It just means controls are put on them so that unauthorised people can't get hold of them.

[BADecker]

In my opinion,it is the most stupid thing that the government forbiddens civil people to use guns.
Criminal can always get the gun,he does not care about penalties,police etc. But you can't as a rightful citizen.
And the police will never get there on time,you can shoot somebody 10 times before they will arrive.

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean that civil people don't get access to guns.  It just means controls are put on them so that unauthorised people can't get hold of them.

Government is made out of people. Rather than letting government people control who has guns, let all the people control who has guns.

If all the people own guns, they will kill off the bad people who try to harm them using guns. Then there will only be good people left who will only use their guns for target practice... because they are good people.

[hermanhs09]

In my opinion,it is the most stupid thing that the government forbiddens civil people to use guns.
Criminal can always get the gun,he does not care about penalties,police etc. But you can't as a rightful citizen.
And the police will never get there on time,you can shoot somebody 10 times before they will arrive.

Gun control doesn't necessarily mean that civil people don't get access to guns.  It just means controls are put on them so that unauthorised people can't get hold of them.

thats true,but control of guns to the level when civil people can get them ( if they will pass the tests ) is very fine for me,
it doesnt allow to get it legal by someone insane or mentally ill,but i speak about complete ban of gun's,like it is happening in my country.

[pandher]

Gun control is stupid, criminals dont need firearms legally

[nururochac]

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?

Banning guns for civil people is the worst thing the goverment may do...
Criminal always can get gun because he is a criminal! but civil person can not,so if criminal threatens him with a gun,he can only cry and hope the police will come ( they will in next 30 minutes,after u get shot and robbed ) . Knifes are not banned,but they are made also for killing people lol.
We should ban knifes!!!!!!! they may harm someone!!!!!!! just death penalty for killers=problem solved

Train the whole population to be police and military, and you won't need to pay for a police department or the military.

Too bad that won't happen because we have different specialties, there are people who can be train in military but there are people that will fail too. Best way is to regulate people can get a gun because what I observe now is there's no tight rules when buying a gun.

[hermanhs09]

Gun control is stupid, criminals dont need firearms legally

You mean that gun's should be possible to buy in every bigger store?
this is stupid.I think gun control is good when authorized civil people can get armed with it,if they cannot it is just sick.

[BADecker]

Six Facts That Disprove Everything Liberals Say About Gun Control

Earlier this week, Judicial Watch came out with the information that one of the guns used in the November 13, 2015 Paris terrorist attacks came from Phoenix, Arizona where the Obama administration allowed Mexican drug cartels to buy thousands of weapons illegally in a deadly and futile "gun-walking" operation known as "Fast and Furious." Prior to arming Mexican drug cartels and the Paris shooters, the CIA determined that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were arming ISIS.

In the immediate aftermath of the Orlando shooting, the New York Times had a big op-ed by a U.C.L.A. 'Law Professor' Adam Winkler, who suggested Congress should "secretly" strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights. In a video that can be seen here, I absolutely shredded the asinine arguments the alleged 'professor of law' made his op-ed, which frankly was an embarrassment for The Times to even print.

How many liberals have you heard voicing concerns about the U.S. government arming known killers? Any? How many have you heard demanding justice? None. Who are liberals focused on? Liberals are focused on taking guns away from law abiding Americans. How are they focusing their effort? By telling lies, six of which are are listed below, and disprove just about every liberal talking point they have on guns.

Americans need to wake up! Liberals know the demographics of the country are changing so fast, that they'll have a big enough majority soon to control all three branches of government. Make no mistake: Liberals aren't "anti-gun" by any means. Liberals in government are very much "pro-gun," as long as they have the guns. Those same liberals however, are very much against people they want complete control over having guns. Make the distinction.


AllenWest.com writes:

If you want to actually learn something about guns, the mainstream media is the last place you'll want to look. The American public's perception of the firearms debate has been completely warped by the media already. Consider this: there are half as many gun murdersper-capita today as there were in the early 1990s, but only 12 percent of Americans are aware of that fact. By contrast, 56 percent think it's increased, and 26 percent think it's about the same.

You better believe the solutions proposed by those in Congress is faulty when most don't even completely understand the nature of the problem. Here are just six facts courtesy of Breitbart News that you won't see on MSNBC anytime soon…

1. Background Checks Do Not Stop High Profile Attackers

Although gun grabbers relentlessly push background checks as the solution to stopping high profile attacks on innocent Americans, the facts are that background checks do not hinder high profile attackers in the least. Alleged Orlando attacker Omar Mateen passed a background check for his guns, as did UCLA gunman Mainak Sarkar and almost every high profile attacker in the past 10 years. You can find a complete list here.

2. More People Killed With Clubs, Hammers Than Rifles

Amid the push for an "assault weapons" ban following the Sandy Hook attack, Breitbart News consulted FBI numbers for the years 2005-2011 and found that the number of murders by hammers and clubs constantly topped the number of murders by rifle. For example, In 2005 the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

Read more at http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/07/08/six-facts-that-disprove-everything-liberals-say-about-gun-control/.

[practicaldreamer]

OK - Haven't really wanted to post in this thread, as being in the UK I don't really see it as my place.

But the events of the last few days have made me want to post. I watched the video Philando Castile's girlfriend recorded this afternoon - which, I have to say, is one of the saddest and most moving things I've seen on video. The thing that comes across is the cops panic - they are being asked to walk a tightrope day in day out. He fucked up really badly. But put anything under pressure for long enough and its going to give, as it tragically has in this case. (BTW thank god for modern tech - and that this woman had the presence of mind to record the events). However, the other big impression that I came away with was how deferential Diamond Reynolds was to the cop, at a time when her loved one lay dead beside her. Seems to me that that comes from knowing if you say the wrong thing you might well end up dead .Is this really the reality for blacks in 21st century America ? Terrifying and shocking in equal measure.

Heard the ongoing live events unfolding in Dallas. Again tragic.


Isn't it about time you people had a grown up debate about how you are gonna get control of the situation - cos from where I'm sat its looking like it isn't going to get any better any time soon. Far from it. The US has all the ingrediants for a potential hell on earth - massive socio economic inequality + historical racial divisions + very low levels of social mobility + a culture of gun ownership. (The only thing that differs here from the situation in the UK is the culture of gun ownership.) Make up your own mind, but it isn't going to end well.

I understand the proud culture of independance that the US has - it strikes me as different from anywhere else that I can think of. But that very culture, in some ways, contains the seeds of its own destruction - especially when taken to the bizarre extremes whereby its easy to acquire an assault rifle.
But on top of the gun control issue (which you need to start taking very seriously indeed in my view) the country needs also to look at the levels of deprivation and inequality in life chances among its citizens. This is the real source of the problem - not just in the US, but everywhere. Difference is in the US, any arsehole can acquire a firearm (including a trained cop).

edit. BTW why aren't black cops policing black areas ?



 

[TheButterZone]

^rejecting reality and substituting criminal safety horseshit propaganda^

Comply with "gun control", show your infringement paper, and die.

[practicaldreamer]

The real problem isn't who is allowed to own guns - the real problem is, who is getting the short end of the stick by everyone being allowed to own guns ? White middle class America ?  

When you talk about gun control you are talking about it from a position of relative (albeit paranoid) safety.

No, its not you bitcoiners paying the price - its the likes of Diamond Reynolds getting the short end of the stick, from where I'm sat.

Lets hope they don't take the battle to your doors hey ? Is that what its going to take to bring it home ?

Whats the end game here ?

[hermanhs09]

The real problem isn't who is allowed to own guns - the real problem is, who is getting the short end of the stick by everyone being allowed to own guns ? White middle class America ? 

When you talk about gun control you are talking about it from a position of relative (albeit paranoid) safety.

No, its not you bitcoiners paying the price - its the likes of Diamond Reynolds getting the short end of the stick, from where I'm sat.

Lets hope they don't take the battle to your doors hey ? Is that what its going to take to bring it home ?

Whats the end game here ?

Yeah but this is not a problem at all for criminal to get a gun,but regular citizen
cannot do anything when someone will pick a gun,just call the police and lay on the ground for 20 minutes and pray to god that he wont get shot.

[BADecker]

Gun control is stupid, criminals dont need firearms legally

You mean that gun's should be possible to buy in every bigger store?
this is stupid.I think gun control is good when authorized civil people can get armed with it,if they cannot it is just sick.

By far the great majority of people are peaceful. If each peaceful person had a thousand guns, and 10 million rounds of ammo, he/she would never harm anyone with it.

The violent, bad people will always be able to get guns and ammo, if they have to make it all themselves.

Peaceful people have the right to protect themselves. When they protect themselves by taking out the violent, bad people who are attacking them, they are doing everyone a service.

As soon as all the violent, bad people are gone, there will be almost no more shootings.

Obviously, law enforcement isn't taking out the violent, bad people. Somebody has to do it.

[Spendulus]

The real problem isn't who is allowed to own guns - the real problem is, who is getting the short end of the stick by everyone being allowed to own guns ? White middle class America ?  

When you talk about gun control you are talking about it from a position of relative (albeit paranoid) safety.

No, its not you bitcoiners paying the price - its the likes of Diamond Reynolds getting the short end of the stick, from where I'm sat.

Lets hope they don't take the battle to your doors hey ? Is that what its going to take to bring it home ?

Whats the end game here ?

You are on the wrong track.

George Soros just donated 12 million dollars to "Black Lives Matter."  That is a shadowy group whose strings are being pulled by nobody knows who.  Days later this event in Dallas happens.