What's your opinion of gun control?

[Heyyyrenz]

i think it will hard for the people to have gun control sometimes they bought it for self defense but some used it for killing or doing bad things i think they should sell guns to only authorize people the people who can really be responsible on using this. example business man and others and i think before buying a gun they have atleast a orientation about this or psychological orientation in order to buy guns they must have to show a proof.

[1715143343]

1715143343

[1715143343]

1715143343

[BADecker]

Congressman Details Hectic Moment Under Fire: 'We Were Sitting Ducks; Gun Saved Our Lives'

A Michigan representative who survived a gun attack during a congressional baseball practice Wednesday morning in Virginia is detailing the harrowing moments the gunman opened fire.

Michigan Rep. Mike Bishop tells WWJ Newsradio 950 he was attending the practice around 5:30 a.m., in Alexandria, when shots rang out. He said he and his colleagues were "sitting ducks."

"As we were standing here this morning, a gunman walked up to the fence line and just began to shoot. I was standing at home plate and he was in the third base line," Bishop said. "He had a rifle that was clearly meant for the job of taking people out, multiple casualties, and he had several rounds and magazines that he kept unloading and reloading."

The shooting went on for roughly 10 minutes, with some accounts putting the number of shots fired around 100. Five people were injured, including two Capitol Hill police officers and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, of Louisiana. The suspect was also shot.

"The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn't have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us," said Bishop. "He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn't have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank."

Read more and listen to the radio broadcast at http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2017/06/14/michigan-representative-ok-as-shots-fired-at-members-of-congress/.

[Okurkabinladin]

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which concerns the right to bear arms, is always a hot-button issue, especially during election season.

Gun rights and gun control groups alike have been lobbying Congress for decades to craft legislation in their respective favors. Twice in the past two years the gun issue has reached the nation’s highest court.

In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun for personal use. But the 5-4 decision only applied to federal laws and failed to address local and state laws. Thus, in July 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal right to bear arms also applies at the state and local level. The ruling lifted a nearly 30-year-old Chicago gun ban. The National Rifle Association called the ruling a landmark, but the decision did not specify what kind of gun laws can be applied to the Second Amendment. “The real challenge is going to be getting law-abiding citizens access to it,” said NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre after the ruling. Both gun rights and gun control groups will likely continue to lobby Congress on this issue to either blunt or sharpen the ruling.

[sindikat]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

[Okurkabinladin]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

You are perfectly correct.

Also in United States only some responsibility is held by federal government, alot of laws are therefore set down by local politicians within states. It is far more just, than collective rule of single group of people over the entire nations.

If democrats in California hate guns, cars and electricity - they can ban it all, but only for themselves. Others might not have such problems and keep them.

[Love!]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.

People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.

A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?

They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.

If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.

The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.

[Okurkabinladin]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.

People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.

A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?

They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.

If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.

The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.

You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend.

Mutually assured destruction.

Indeed assasin (who will get his weapon regardless of laws) might still act, but common folk? No.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

[Lancusters]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

You are perfectly correct.

Also in United States only some responsibility is held by federal government, alot of laws are therefore set down by local politicians within states. It is far more just, than collective rule of single group of people over the entire nations.

If democrats in California hate guns, cars and electricity - they can ban it all, but only for themselves. Others might not have such problems and keep them.

Those who propose to tighten the rules for the use of guns in America will never lead the statistics in confirmation of his words. They take for example some mass shooting and trying to pass it off as a pattern. No one ever says how many people the weapon has saved lives.

[rahmat92]

Gun control is Legal creation for people who have several types of firearms. Arms control for safety issues for private owners and use of criminal justice and law

[DarkKnight68]

Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.

[C10H15N]

Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.

Incorrect on all counts.  The Paris shootings alone prove your statements are false.  Criminals don't give a shit about the law.   

[BADecker]

Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.

Incorrect on all counts.  The Paris shootings alone prove your statements are false.  Criminals don't give a shit about the law.   

Right. Gun control doesn't have much if anything to do with the criminals. Or, actually it does. The controllers ARE the criminals. So, gun control is a method to arm them more effectively.

[sindikat]

Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.

When the crazy man had the idea to kill someone he can do it with a knife, ax, or just a baseball bat. When people have guns you always have a chance if not you then someone will intercede for you.

[criptix]

Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.

Incorrect on all counts.  The Paris shootings alone prove your statements are false.  Criminals don't give a shit about the law.   

Mass shooting in us schools vs europe schools.
USA wins easily.
For that reason us schools look like high security prisons.
Lol

[Love!]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.

People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.

A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?

They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.

If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.

The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.

You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend.

Mutually assured destruction.

Indeed assassin (who will get his weapon regardless of laws) might still act, but common folk? No.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

Tell that to the people in the ghettos of America.

This is a good example of how 2 opposing viewpoints are neither right or wrong. They are just different based on different perspectives. 

[Ginosaur15]

Gun control is very complicated argument. Well guns are made to hurt or kill for protecting yourself or your love obes in danger but it can also use for crimes. I think gun control is a good idea so that only the ones who really needs it gets a gun. It is GUN CONTROL not GUN BAN. Its differrent, right?

[crabbybazil]

Would i sound repetitive if i tell is a strategy from government to take control over people? lol

[Sithara007]

Gun control is very complicated argument. Well guns are made to hurt or kill for protecting yourself or your love obes in danger but it can also use for crimes. I think gun control is a good idea so that only the ones who really needs it gets a gun. It is GUN CONTROL not GUN BAN. Its differrent, right?

Nowadays, there is not much difference between "gun control" and "gun ban". For example, I live in a country where it is practically impossible to purchase a gun. Getting a license and purchasing a fire-arm involves a lot of bureaucratic headache and can waste a lot of your time and effort. Even if you manage to get a gun license in the end, getting the ammo is another big headache.

[BADecker]

Gun control is just like any other control. It is people control. If you can control people, you can use their labor to advance your lifestyle, and make you feel powerful. Power is intoxicating... like a drug.

Gun control isn't gun control. Rather, it is people control.

[iluvpie60]

Taking away the rights to legally own guns hurts the poorer population more. Usually the crimes happen in the poorer neighborhoods due to the culture of violence drugs brings out.

When people are not allowed to legally have guns the thing that happens is that the criminals still have them. When all the criminals have them and you don't, eventually your neighborhood is overrun with criminals and becomes more and more problematic.