What's your opinion of gun control?

[BADecker]

The point is, when Stalin killed his 60 to 100 million, guns were not flying around like candy cars. If they had been, a bunch of people would have gotten together and stopped Stalin by using their guns on him and his death squads. Same with Hitler.

So if you have guns for politicians as in the government doing bad  then why do fox news say don't attack politicians ?..
people say in the usa don't attack the politician so why do you have guns?..

Does it not say for the government    then it's ok to shoot them but not to abuse them with words?

News agencies are brainwashing outlets for government and the wealthy to use against the rest of us.

[popcorn1]

... hay bob what gun do you have at 5 years old ..

A squirt gun. Start 'em early, so that by the time they can hold a 9mm, they'll know how to use it properly.

like this guy?

So no guns less death   fact...

Wrong! Statistics show that since guns have become popular - like over the last 300 years - the population of the world has grown to the highest ever on record... about 7.5 billion people, today. If the last hundred years is the example, even though that 7.5 billion will die some day, they will only make room for, maybe, a hundred billion.

Back in the days when people hacked themselves to death with swords and spears and clubs and fists, the population wasn't so large.

So, more guns more life.

I come from a mad city with guns ..Now if they was easy got like the USA death rate would be 3 a day  not 3 a month or sometimes 3 in a year ..
the explosion of death would increase   it's the money capitalism   we had socialism  in the uk    when I was growing up you would of never dreamed of shooting someone
now   every street would shoot you no danger   .. we cannot even walk around a corner in case someone thinks your someone else ..

It's gone crazy the children have no thought for life.. if guns more around like USA jeez i fear the outcome ..

If everyone had guns, the bad people would be dead, and the good people would respect each other... and governments would think twice about attempting to tax people.

How much do you make?  enough to pay for the motorway  or police force in your area ?  did all your taxes pay for the police force..
No you collected taxes  or BUMMED off the future children that are not yours .. so really you had socialism to pay for your roads and police because you never pay for it all
plus bob next door never pay for it all     plus massive companies never paid for it all   so it leaves you to BORROW off who well not your children anyway..

SO are you a socialist or a bum well your in 20trillion in debt    Oh and don't want to pay it back  you want poor mary and her future children to pay this back OR
you don't pay it back  and become debt thieves     like not paying your debts   bums low lifes..

[popcorn1]

The point is, when Stalin killed his 60 to 100 million, guns were not flying around like candy cars. If they had been, a bunch of people would have gotten together and stopped Stalin by using their guns on him and his death squads. Same with Hitler.

So if you have guns for politicians as in the government doing bad  then why do fox news say don't attack politicians ?..
people say in the usa don't attack the politician so why do you have guns?..

Does it not say for the government    then it's ok to shoot them but not to abuse them with words?

News agencies are brainwashing outlets for government and the wealthy to use against the rest of us.

No you brainwash your own mind with fairy tales .. no your right governments do things to line their own pockets just like
Francesco Vincent Serpico (born April 14, 1936) is a retired American New York City Police Department (NYPD) police who is most famous for testifying against police corruption in 1971. The Frank Serpico/NYPD case study provides an alarming account of systemic corruption.

[BADecker]

The point is, when Stalin killed his 60 to 100 million, guns were not flying around like candy cars. If they had been, a bunch of people would have gotten together and stopped Stalin by using their guns on him and his death squads. Same with Hitler.

So if you have guns for politicians as in the government doing bad  then why do fox news say don't attack politicians ?..
people say in the usa don't attack the politician so why do you have guns?..

Does it not say for the government    then it's ok to shoot them but not to abuse them with words?

News agencies are brainwashing outlets for government and the wealthy to use against the rest of us.

No you brainwash your own mind with fairy tales .. no your right governments do things to line their own pockets just like
Francesco Vincent Serpico (born April 14, 1936) is a retired American New York City Police Department (NYPD) police who is most famous for testifying against police corruption in 1971. The Frank Serpico/NYPD case study provides an alarming account of systemic corruption.

News agencies have to make themselves look like good guys so that they can make money. They report whatever works. But they do it in such a way that makes government look good as much as they can.

[tvbcof]

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.

If someone want to kill another person or themselves, there are many ways to do it.  Even now it is very often not with the use of guns.  A hammer was involved in the last homicide I know of in my area.

If you have the ability to kill a person who is trying to kill or harm you, there is a very good chance that the attacker will just not bother in the first place.  Then there will be no death or violence at all.  It is especially relevant to the weak among us who are targeted by criminals (who don't give a shit about gun laws anyway,)   The basic idea is actually pretty common-sense and it is age-old.  That's why the right of self defense is pretty universal.  The right is only fairly recently rejected by brainwashed gun-grabbers here in the U.S. by pouring money on the propaganda.  (Why the sudden explosive push, I have to wonder?  Who's behind it?  Hmmm.)

Taking away a person's means of self-defense ensures that the innocent and weak will be the majority of those who die, and that criminals who target them will increase their activities because they have nothing to fear.

[Spendulus]

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.

Bah. That's contrary to reality itself.

All organized forces that stop killing use guns to do so.

All of them. Every sort of police, sheriff, detective, every single organized force, large or small, that is created by society to stop violence carries firearms.

Your argument is what is retarded.

[BADecker]

Stalin, Hitler and Mao were some of the biggest supporters of gun control, and together they killed as many as 200 million. How did they do it? They used the guns they had control of. How did they get control of the guns? Through gun control.

You gotta die sometime. But having a gun in your hand can delay your death.



When you look at the gun problems in the USA, why are they there? It's because the gun controllers have infiltrated America covertly, and are killing off unsuspecting freedom lovers.

The Las Vegas massacre was done by people in helicopters who want gun control, not by a single man in an upper floor in a hotel. Look into it and you will see. The media is lying to you. They are in favor of gun control.

[tvbcof]

If you look at any statistic, the number of deaths due to gun crime per capita in the USA which lacks the gun control that the UK for example has, is so massively higher.
It strikes me as lacking common sense to say that gun control shouldn't be put into America. The 2nd amendment is outdated and needs to change.
If the statistics don't persuade you, then perhaps the mass shootings in schools that occur so frequently (the UK doesn't get these may I just add) and unnecessarily, will. Other countries without guns get by with citizens "fighting the bad guys", so there's no reason to suggest the USA cannot do the same.

I've heard that in the UK they are trying to figure out how to make knifes illegal because, as is completely predictable, criminals use whatever weapon they need to do crime and the choices are countless.  Use of knives by criminals is relatively uncommon in the U.S., or at least in the areas where the gun-grabbers have not worked their magic.  Why?  Because the would-be victim could well have a gun.

I would also say that in many parts of the rest of the world people have to deal with armed criminal and terrorist groups.  So you have some village who bands together as best they can, but are always at risk of so band coming into the village to rape and loot.  Denying these people a means of self defense is very unethical in my opinion, and most of these countries don't have anywhere near the resources to protect civilians.

Even in the U.S. where I live there is not 1/100 of the police presence to properly protect civilians against criminals and no budget for it.  We as a responsible citizens take on the duty of protecting our communities.  It is as easy as having a cheap shotgun in the closet, and 9/10ths of these are never used.  No need.  Criminals just find some other way to make a living, and those who don't don't live long.

In my area our solution of wide-spread gun ownership works.  We are also an area which is out in front in protecting the 2nd amendment because we know it is a cost-effective way to have a good quality of life for normal people.  If it drives the United Nations crazy, to bad.

[xtraelv]

Stalin, Hitler and Mao were some of the biggest supporters of gun control, and together they killed as many as 200 million. How did they do it? They used the guns they had control of. How did they get control of the guns? Through gun control.

LOL what a load of bullshit ! Back up that statement with historical facts. Here are some historical facts:

Hitler

Most of the gun control in Germany came from the Versailles Treaty around 1919. Germans were banned from possessing firearms.

Treaty of Versaille, imposed by the allied powers
Article 169 "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."

In 1928, the gun control laws were made less severe.
The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation.
Hitler didn't come to power till 1933 ! Hitler didn't take guns, he made it easier for people to get guns !
Hitlers 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except Jews to own guns !
In 1938 the legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.
By 1938 Hitler had so much control that no matter how many guns the Jews had it wouldn't have saved them.
The Russian Army lost 8-10 million men fighting the Wehrmacht and another 14 million civilians - the Russians had machine guns, tanks, anti aircraft guns, aircraft, explosives etc.

https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Mao

Mao didn't take away guns. Not only did people living in the country have rifles for hunting, some communities even had small artillery pieces and anti aircraft guns.    

Of course it was under the proper direction of the party. It wasn't hard to get or own a gun during Mao's time.

It is only after Deng Xiao Ping took over that the militias were gradually banned, and their weapons were confiscated.  

Stalin

Private citizens could own hunting weapons if they had police permission. Police and militia could confiscate guns of people that showed "irresponsible behaviour"

In 1929-30 there was a clampdown on guns. - so Stalin exercised gun control.

Of the 6 million people that perished under Stalin it is said that 3 million starved to death. Maybe they could have eaten their gun if they still had one.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

[PinchSizzlin]

I think freedom means that you can defend yourself with what suits you most.

[wolf_norris]

Stalin, Hitler and Mao were some of the biggest supporters of gun control, and together they killed as many as 200 million. How did they do it? They used the guns they had control of. How did they get control of the guns? Through gun control.

LOL what a load of bullshit ! Back up that statement with historical facts. Here are some historical facts:

Hitler

Most of the gun control in Germany came from the Versailles Treaty around 1919. Germans were banned from possessing firearms.

Treaty of Versaille, imposed by the allied powers
Article 169 "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."

In 1928, the gun control laws were made less severe.
The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation.
Hitler didn't come to power till 1933 ! Hitler didn't take guns, he made it easier for people to get guns !
Hitlers 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except Jews to own guns !
In 1938 the legal age at which guns could be purchased was lowered from 20 to 18.
By 1938 Hitler had so much control that no matter how many guns the Jews had it wouldn't have saved them.
The Russian Army lost 8-10 million men fighting the Wehrmacht and another 14 million civilians - the Russians had machine guns, tanks, anti aircraft guns, aircraft, explosives etc.

https://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Mao

Mao didn't take away guns. Not only did people living in the country have rifles for hunting, some communities even had small artillery pieces and anti aircraft guns.    

Of course it was under the proper direction of the party. It wasn't hard to get or own a gun during Mao's time.

It is only after Deng Xiao Ping took over that the militias were gradually banned, and their weapons were confiscated.  

Stalin

Private citizens could own hunting weapons if they had police permission. Police and militia could confiscate guns of people that showed "irresponsible behaviour"

In 1929-30 there was a clampdown on guns. - so Stalin exercised gun control.

Of the 6 million people that perished under Stalin it is said that 3 million starved to death. Maybe they could have eaten their gun if they still had one.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

Thanks for this very detailed post. It's annoying when people throw around statements without any facts. I like it when people do their research. I'm not really sure what to take of all this though. So, these three leaders were responsible for the death of millions. For at least some time, the all had very lax gun control laws. So, will more murders happen when there is less gun control? Or will there be less? Or perhaps it's not correlated at all?

[tvbcof]

...

Thanks for this very detailed post. It's annoying when people throw around statements without any facts. I like it when people do their research. I'm not really sure what to take of all this though. So, these three leaders were responsible for the death of millions. For at least some time, the all had very lax gun control laws. So, will more murders happen when there is less gun control? Or will there be less? Or perhaps it's not correlated at all?

Agree that false or incomplete facts are not helpful.  But Snopes is hardly the place to get 'facts' on any of a number of contentious subjects.  'Gun control' is certainly one of these.

Leadership though the ages has had a conundrum.  For one, they want their fighting age men to have proficiency with weapons (esp, long bows) so that their conquests are more successful.  On the other hand, most leadership (rightly) fears their own citizens more than any other threat more often than not.

Hitler knew he was going to be popular and knew he would need riflemen, so gun proficiency was encouraged at an early age among most of the population.  He did do gun confiscation against certain classes of people and, unsurprisingly, these people were later to be sorely wishing they had some self defense and were to suffer greatly for their loss.

The average Chinese could not afford a bowl of rice so no matter what Mao's policy (which doubtless shifted as the revolution progressed), there was never a danger of very many guns.  Indeed, the tactics in China's conflict with the U.S. was driven by an inadequate supply of weapons and consisted of supplying only the front ranks with rifles.  When the front ranks got mowed down, the later ranks picked up the rifles that were dropped by the recently dead.  This lack of weapons did not 'serve the people' very well...though it helped with China's burgeoning demographics problems.

The Soviet Union were communists, and commies do what commies do.  Namely, obtain complete control of everything possible and produce a massive death toll against anything and anyone, real or imagined, which might pose a future threat to their grip on power.

Any thinking analyst should be asking themselves why to hard-core push (world-wide) to propagandize against anything which could be used by populations for self defense.  Why is it so important to the United Nations in particular?  What are the conditions under which people might be so desperate as to pick up arms to defend themselves (which is unthinkable to most Americans at this point), and is the United Nations anticipating such a scenario?  Are they in fact even planning it?  If so, are they waiting patiently for the United States with it's very deep constitutional protections to dis-arm before their plans can proceed forward?

[tvbcof]

The point I’d like to make about gun control is more concerned with the safety of people who own guns for recreational or self-defense purposes. Gun accidents occur daily. This is due to the ridiculously easy standards we have for purchasing a gun. I think that instead of simply running a background check, that people should be required to receive proper training and safety etiquette before buying a gun. I do not consider a 2 hour course enough, as it is now for a concealed weapon’s permit.

Lots of types of accidents 'occur daily'.  The biggest bang for the buck is probably clamping down on bicycles which are quite unnecessary and dangerous and put the whole family at risk.  At least if the is _really_ the goal of the people behind motivating the gun-grabbers.

As for CCW, whatever we are doing seem to be working pretty well.  CCW permit holders are responsible for the lowest rates of crime as I understand it.  Less than off-duty police officers who are vastly more 'well trained.'

[breadwinners]

I feel both the supporters and those opposing gun control are right in some ways and I understand it's not easy to find mutually satisfying solution. However, I believe we need strict control over gun possession by mentally challenged and other similar types of citizens. Otherwise, people must have choice.

[xtraelv]

...

Thanks for this very detailed post. It's annoying when people throw around statements without any facts. I like it when people do their research. I'm not really sure what to take of all this though. So, these three leaders were responsible for the death of millions. For at least some time, the all had very lax gun control laws. So, will more murders happen when there is less gun control? Or will there be less? Or perhaps it's not correlated at all?

Agree that false or incomplete facts are not helpful.  But Snopes is hardly the place to get 'facts' on any of a number of contentious subjects.  'Gun control' is certainly one of these.

Ironically the Snopes link is the only link that partially supported the notion that Stalin supported gun control.

Leadership though the ages has had a conundrum.  For one, they want their fighting age men to have proficiency with weapons (esp, long bows) so that their conquests are more successful.  On the other hand, most leadership (rightly) fears their own citizens more than any other threat more often than not.

Hitler knew he was going to be popular and knew he would need riflemen, so gun proficiency was encouraged at an early age among most of the population.  He did do gun confiscation against certain classes of people and, unsurprisingly, these people were later to be sorely wishing they had some self defense and were to suffer greatly for their loss.

The average Chinese could not afford a bowl of rice so no matter what Mao's policy (which doubtless shifted as the revolution progressed), there was never a danger of very many guns.  Indeed, the tactics in China's conflict with the U.S. was driven by an inadequate supply of weapons and consisted of supplying only the front ranks with rifles.  When the front ranks got mowed down, the later ranks picked up the rifles that were dropped by the recently dead.  This lack of weapons did not 'serve the people' very well...though it helped with China's burgeoning demographics problems.

The Soviet Union were communists, and commies do what commies do.  Namely, obtain complete control of everything possible and produce a massive death toll against anything and anyone, real or imagined, which might pose a future threat to their grip on power.

Any thinking analyst should be asking themselves why to hard-core push (world-wide) to propagandize against anything which could be used by populations for self defense.  Why is it so important to the United Nations in particular?  What are the conditions under which people might be so desperate as to pick up arms to defend themselves (which is unthinkable to most Americans at this point), and is the United Nations anticipating such a scenario?  Are they in fact even planning it?  If so, are they waiting patiently for the United States with it's very deep constitutional protections to dis-arm before their plans can proceed forward?

Gun ownership control against tyranny of a Government has no relevance.
Private guns against Government guns is a no contest.

Unless you are keen to go out in a bullet blaze of glory - gun ownership does not increase your survival chances.

Government tyranny and control develops slowly - in the minds of people. If you have a gun you will be isolated and disarmed. One by one.

I see people terrorized by police in the USA now. People shot because police think they have a gun.

Massacres that are happening in gun toting countries - you cannot convince people in such a society that their guns are responsible for it.

How effective is any resistance against a modern equipped army with handguns and rifles ? The weapons that are effective are already banned in the US.
Anyone got an RPG ? Surface to air missiles? armed aircraft ? Machinegun made after 1986 ?

One of my US friends told me his neighbor shot herself yesterday. Suicide by gun (by far the easiest method) is 46 times higher in the USA than in the United Kingdom.


Lack of gun control means:

More gun crime
More accidental gun deaths
More gun suicides
More police shootings
Increased likelihood of an armed intruder in your home.

Proper gun control means:
People with mental health issues do not have access to guns. Criminals do not have easy access to guns. People should not need have to have guns for "protection". (It would imply that criminals have access to guns)

A perfectly sane person should be able to have recreational use of a gun.  Tank ? Hell yeah - I want one of those.

[wolf_norris]

Gun ownership control against tyranny of a Government has no relevance.
Private guns against Government guns is a no contest.

Unless you are keen to go out in a bullet blaze of glory - gun ownership does not increase your survival chances.

Government tyranny and control develops slowly - in the minds of people. If you have a gun you will be isolated and disarmed. One by one.

I see people terrorized by police in the USA now. People shot because police think they have a gun.

Massacres that are happening in gun toting countries - you cannot convince people in such a society that their guns are responsible for it.

How effective is any resistance against a modern equipped army with handguns and rifles ? The weapons that are effective are already banned in the US.
Anyone got an RPG ? Surface to air missiles? armed aircraft ? Machinegun made after 1986 ?

One of my US friends told me his neighbor shot herself yesterday. Suicide by gun (by far the easiest method) is 46 times higher in the USA than in the United Kingdom.


Lack of gun control means:

More gun crime
More accidental gun deaths
More gun suicides
More police shootings
Increased likelihood of an armed intruder in your home.

Proper gun control means:
People with mental health issues do not have access to guns. Criminals do not have easy access to guns. People should not need have to have guns for "protection". (It would imply that criminals have access to guns)

A perfectly sane person should be able to have recreational use of a gun.  Tank ? Hell yeah - I want one of those.

Man, this really is an endless debate. You make a very good point about civilian guns vs. government guns. If you imagine a guy with a pistol vs. the army, then he probably doesn't have much of a chance. The fact that countries with more guns have more gun violence, suicide by gun, and cops killing people who look like they might have a gun, but don't, that's more than enough for me to not want to life in a country with a big gun culture. Do you think there's a solution for the US? How could you make it less of a gun country? Wouldn't it be hard to get rid of the mass amount of weapon that are already out there?

[tvbcof]

Lack of gun control means:

More gun crime
More accidental gun deaths
More gun suicides
More police shootings
Increased likelihood of an armed intruder in your home.

The U.S. has plenty of gun control and these problems are at a tolerable level and most of them dropping.  Those which are not dropping will only get worse as citizens are dis-armed.

The main problems which remain tend to be in localities where there is an unhealthy amount of 'gun control' such as Chicago.  For some reason the gun-grabbers want to take the same laws which demonstrably don't work from these localities and apply them across the nation.  It makes no sense until you understand who is funding the gun-grabbers and the propaganda.  Then it all falls into place.

Proper gun control means:
People with mental health issues do not have access to guns. Criminals do not have easy access to guns. People should not need have to have guns for "protection". (It would imply that criminals have access to guns)

Again, we already have such controls in the U.S. and they are working fine.

Criminals will always have easy access to guns and it will be increasingly easy going forward.  This due to such technology as 3D printed guns.  The biggest problem is that governments flood certain areas with weapons for destabilization operations.  Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc are prime examples.  Mexico as well.  These weapons wash around and are picked up by whoever has need for them.  The problem is very serious in places like Mexico which have huge problems with drug cartels.  Mexico has very strict 'gun control' which makes it very difficult for normal people to defend themselves against criminals (who sometimes wear police uniforms and have a government issued badge.)  In the U.S. where normal people, who always outnumber criminals, have the ability to be somewhat equally matched the problem is nill in most areas.

A perfectly sane person should be able to have recreational use of a gun.  Tank ? Hell yeah - I want one of those.

We have that situation in the U.S..  If you are a responsible person (and rich) and you want to jump through the hoops, you can even have a tank.  There are weapons such as these in the hands of collectors.

[Wizardbizari]

Having a gun makes many people feel better, more secure, but recent developments have shown that guns are too dangerous and the mere fact you own a gun cannot protect you.

[BADecker]

Having guns actually DOES protect people... even if they never use them. How? Because crooks with guns don't know that other people won't USE their guns. So the crooks stay away.

Does this mean that guns will save everybody? No! But it saves people way more than not having guns. All you need do is look at the articles in this thread where I have shown how people fended off crooks, by using guns that they had.

Here's some more:

11-year-old Boy Shoots Home Intruder: 'He started crying like a little baby'

Armed Grandma Uses Gun to Detain Burglar

Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times

Oklahoma Mother, 18, Kills Intruder Breaking Into Her Home While on Phone With 911

And there's many more when you look for them. Get rid of the crooks... like the Democrats that want to disarm us so they can break into our house and rob us without fear.

[Earl Ragnaar]

Well if we are going to talk about the gun control then for the starter that it is dangerous and it should be kept away from the street and from all of the dangerous people because if it comes to the wrong hands then there will be voilance and the streets will no longer be safe for us or for even our children.

SO i hate guns and the people who use to hurt innocent people.