What's your opinion of gun control?

[TECSHARE]

Elderly NY man kills repeat burglars, is charged for using inherited gun, loses his home

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/06/09/elderly-ny-man-kills-repeat-burglars-is-charged-for-using-inherited-gun-loses-his-home-763069

[1714647268]

1714647268

[1714647268]

1714647268

[1714647268]

1714647268

[iamsheikhadil]

I think that when guns have been already sold like groceries in the states, it makes no sense to ban guns totally until the sold guns are brought back from the holders.

Gun control simply means to control who can purchase a gun, thus making it stricter for someone to get a gun from the market. Various types of checks are done to ensure the person is sane and will only use it for defense.

But, these checks doesn't apply to criminals and shooter-wannabes. Because they won't go and get a gun from the gun shops, they will just steal. From parents or grand parents, or friends, they will steal guns and do their crimes.

But am I against gun control? No. Checking who is ourchasing guns and putting strict control and checks on them is essential.

However, in many sensitive zones, it makes sense to keep high security guards with guns and protections. Like in schools. This will prevent school shooters to just enter and kill bunch. Just keep a soldier in schools just like we use soldiers to protect us as countries.

[TimeBits]

Two options

1. either ban all the guns world wide (kind of bad if we get attacked by aliens or another country or people within our own country)
2. let everyone own a firearm if they want to (so long as they know it is for self defense)

2 seems a little better

[BADecker]

^^^ In a utopian society, there wouldn't be need for guns or any other weapons. People are smart enough to ban together and fight off wild animals almost without any weapons. Trouble is, we don't have an utopian society.

Besides, as I have written many times, guns are an equalizer that we want in our non-utopian societies. Remember what it was like fighting wars with swords? And remember this: A 250-pound muscle-man thug can easily mug, rape, and murder a 90-pound teenage girl. But if Girly has a gun, she has a chance... even if Muscle-man Thug has a gun, as well.

Talk peace. Promote peace. But keep your gun handy so you live long enough to make your peace work.

[BADecker]

The scare-tactics of the gun controllers is like a gun backfiring on them.


The "Mass Shootings Map" Propaganda Should Convince You to Carry At All Times

You've probably read some of the cries for gun control and the stat of "more than one mass shooting a day" happening in the US. To see this propaganda, you'd think that people walk around with Uzis, randomly opening fire all the time. You've probably had this map indignantly posted at you in response to something you said about guns on social media.

But, you see, the map is BS. It's a big old truckload of baloney sandwiches, steaming in the sun. It's a manipulation that is being used to frighten people into thinking they'd be safer if none of us had the tools that we need to protect ourselves.

These terrifying dots are not all brazen shoot-outs in malls or movie theaters, during which someone takes out as many people as they can. But that's how it's portrayed. It's posted without any real criteria except for the fact that it is incidents in which 4 or more people are shot, including the initial perpetrator. (A reader pointed out that these dots indicate shootings, not deaths in every case).

[fatnet]

gun control sucks
/close

[Cootie]

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?

I would say, it must well-controlled and regulated. As you say, it is made to hurt or even worse, kill somebody. Even though it can be used for entertainment and hobby, we can't remove the fact that is it dangerous in any way. So i say, the control must strict to avoid it to get into wrong hands and cause chaos.

[BADecker]

I would say, it must well-controlled and regulated. As you say, it is made to hurt or even worse, kill somebody. Even though it can be used for entertainment and hobby, we can't remove the fact that is it dangerous in any way. So i say, the control must strict to avoid it to get into wrong hands and cause chaos.

Right! We need to control and regulate guns much more.

However, if we don't have guns, we can't control and regulate them. So give everybody guns so we all can control and regulate them.

[BADecker]

Here's the best way to do gun control.


As NRA membership wanes, America's largest black gun group is thriving

But another, lesser-known gun organization is thriving: the National African American Gun Association, the largest minority gun group in the country.

The group was founded by Phillip Smith, who fondly remembers the first time he fired his 9 mm pistol at a gun range.

"I felt free," Smith said. "I had a chance to kind of have some power in my hands."

Smith formed the first chapter of the National African American Gun Association, or NAAGA, in Atlanta.

"I didn't think I'd get more than 30 people…" Smith said. But in just five years, NAAGA has started 75 chapters with more than 30,000 members, over 90% of whom are black.

"We have folks from every walk of life," Smith said. "Black doctors, gay, straight, Republicans, Democrats. You name it, we have it … We're not monolithic in why we're all here. We have different reasons."

[PopoJeff]

"Gun Control" will not work. Period.
Let's say you manage to abolish the Second Amendment and outlaw all guns. Guns are now illegal.
You think that will work?

Look how well it's worked for drugs.

Gun laws only affect the people who follow the law.

Why dont we just make murder illegal, then no one will shoot anyone.

[BADecker]

The device normally known as a gun is not a gun when it becomes my property. What does it become, then? It becomes "property." Why? Because I said so.

If government says that it is a gun, what ownership do they have vested in my property? Show me the government ownership paperwork. I can show my property ownership paperwork.

If the government continues to call my property a gun (or firearm), they are threatening trespass on my property. If they actively mess with me or my property, they are trespassers and wrongdoers... except, of course, if I have formally directly threatened someone or actually harmed someone.

I will sue anyone who messes with my property without my authorization. I don't need any stinkin' Second Amendment regarding my property, even though it looks like a gun, smells like a gun, and shoots like a gun. It isn't a gun. It's my property.

Property rights are greater than gun rights. Property rights are greater than firearm designations. Property rights are the basis for all rights.

[PopoJeff]

The device normally known as a gun is not a gun when it becomes my property. What does it become, then? It becomes "property." Why? Because I said so.

If government says that it is a gun, what ownership do they have vested in my property? Show me the government ownership paperwork. I can show my property ownership paperwork.

If the government continues to call my property a gun (or firearm), they are threatening trespass on my property. If they actively mess with me or my property, they are trespassers and wrongdoers... except, of course, if I have formally directly threatened someone or actually harmed someone.

I will sue anyone who messes with my property without my authorization. I don't need any stinkin' Second Amendment regarding my property, even though it looks like a gun, smells like a gun, and shoots like a gun. It isn't a gun. It's my property.

Property rights are greater than gun rights. Property rights are greater than firearm designations. Property rights are the basis for all rights.

Yeah, rumor has it.... if you get arrested for unlawfully carrying a firearm or possession of drugs, you can just tell the cops or judge that the gun wasn't a firearm, the heroin wasn't drugs, it was personal property....  and they're all like "my bad, you can go, sorry"

 

[BADecker]

The device normally known as a gun is not a gun when it becomes my property. What does it become, then? It becomes "property." Why? Because I said so.

If government says that it is a gun, what ownership do they have vested in my property? Show me the government ownership paperwork. I can show my property ownership paperwork.

If the government continues to call my property a gun (or firearm), they are threatening trespass on my property. If they actively mess with me or my property, they are trespassers and wrongdoers... except, of course, if I have formally directly threatened someone or actually harmed someone.

I will sue anyone who messes with my property without my authorization. I don't need any stinkin' Second Amendment regarding my property, even though it looks like a gun, smells like a gun, and shoots like a gun. It isn't a gun. It's my property.

Property rights are greater than gun rights. Property rights are greater than firearm designations. Property rights are the basis for all rights.

Yeah, rumor has it.... if you get arrested for unlawfully carrying a firearm or possession of drugs, you can just tell the cops or judge that the gun wasn't a firearm, the heroin wasn't drugs, it was personal property....  and they're all like "my bad, you can go, sorry"

 

Since you referenced my former post...

That would be unwise.

First, you don't just tell them anything at all. Your Miranda rights are in effect even if they don't read them. Save it for your attorney, your counsel who has power of attorney to enter paperwork into the record on your behalf, or the court. And you don't just blab something into the court. Rather, you respond with a claim, so that you become the prosecutor.

Second, the whole idea was that it was your property, not a firearm or drugs. So, why would you call drugs or firearms drugs or firearms? You need to maintain that whatever it is, is your property except if they can show ownership in some way.

Third, if you are doing it unlawfully, you should be punished according to what the law demands... for anything, not just for drugs and firearms.

Fourth, they barely ever say they are sorry. Stating that you are sorry says that you did something wrong. As it is, States and cities wind up paying millions for mistakes when it is adjudicated that their people did something wrong. So, why would you think that they would admit it by saying "sorry?"


People have forgotten how to use common law and words like "wrongdoer" and "property" among others. That's why generally there are loads of people in prison for victimless "crimes." Actually, putting people in prison for victimless crimes is criminal in itself. And it is the politicians fault, and the peoples', because we should all be waking each other up to the fact that there is no need for prison or punishment for a victimless crime in almost all cases.

What's happening is, the judicial system and the attorneys are getting rich by stealing the money from the innocent, ignorant public.

[PopoJeff]

Went right over your head

[BADecker]

And then gone. That's what usually happens when they find they can't win.

[Shadidalam1111]

Guns aren't going anywhere, the Govt. is not capable of taking them all. It's logistically not feasible.

[tvbcof]

Guns aren't going anywhere, the Govt. is not capable of taking them all. It's logistically not feasible.

It would be possible to coerce 98% of the gun owners in the U.S. to relinquish their firearms volentarily and perform some cleanup operation to 'neutralize' the remaining 2%.

Technology has far outpaced what most gun-owners are aware of.  In fact it has outpaced what most gun-owners (and non-gun-owners) can even imagine.

It's really not a matter of gun confiscation not being possible.  It's a matter of the cost of doing so (in terms of public perception and reaction.)  We are in the phase now of reducing that cost through massive propaganda and probably some other methods as well.  When they 'go for it' the population needs to be softened up and certain legal things need to be accomplished (e.g., dismissal outright of the entire constitution.)  And they will be.

[BADecker]

Guns aren't going anywhere, the Govt. is not capable of taking them all. It's logistically not feasible.

It would be possible to coerce 98% of the gun owners in the U.S. to relinquish their firearms volentarily and perform some cleanup operation to 'neutralize' the remaining 2%.

Technology has far outpaced what most gun-owners are aware of.  In fact it has outpaced what most gun-owners (and non-gun-owners) can even imagine.

It's really not a matter of gun confiscation not being possible.  It's a matter of the cost of doing so (in terms of public perception and reaction.)  We are in the phase now of reducing that cost through massive propaganda and probably some other methods as well.  When they 'go for it' the population needs to be softened up and certain legal things need to be accomplished (e.g., dismissal outright of the entire constitution.)  And they will be.

Right! It's kinda like the fact that the money system is essentially dead, and will come crashing down at some time in the near future. We don't want Bitcoin to take over until Bitcoin is ready, because a crashed fiat system would be chaos for all of us if Bitcoin isn't ready. So, we are pushing Bitcoin in there gradually, hoping fiat will hold together long enough for Bitcoin to be ready (Notice that Bitcoin Core is still in beta mode.)

If fiat crashes, the best thing that Government can do is to immediately send out their people controls... you know, the crowd control "weapons." Immediately, because the mass chaos from the fiat crash will cause the Government policing forces to have no support in a short while, and they will melt away like snow before a blowtorch.

Guns?

[Lapatai]

I think that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
Just look what media and movies teaching people - You have guns, you are better and more powerful than the other.

Now about school shootings in USA, it's horrible. The bullies in class drives one kid crazy, then he snaps and shoots up the school.
If the society's point of view doesn't change (USA for example) then the gun control and many restrictions like in Japan.

Now let's take some of Arabic countries. I saw a photo of a little kid (3-years old?) holding AK-47 in his hands. They grew up with guns, but none of them shot up their school or family.
I think that it's the attitude and respect for others that makes sense.

[BADecker]

^^^ Kids in some countries are required to fight, because the whole world seems to be against some of those countries.

The reason why kids hold guns is that nations like the USA are fighting with the country the kids are in.

Guns are just about dead in the USA. After all, even though there are bunches of guns all over the place, the courts still send people to prison for victimless crimes (which aren't crimes at all). If America's guns were worth anything, they would be used to force these innocent people out of prison, and back into freedom.