What's your opinion of gun control?

[BADecker]

Criminals are far too clever and still will get hold of guns.

There is still too much profit involved in drugs fro the gangs to give up guns. This gun issue has been going on for a long time and it requires a huge change in americas gun loving culture. On a per capita basis the US still has far too many deaths compared to other developed countries. I dont know how this will be solved because people on both sides are not budging?

I support regulation on firearms but you can't impose gun control on criminals coz they will always find ways to get guns no matter what. Guns should be banned to an extent to civilians but gun bans won't just work to criminals.

Other developed countries have far too much violent crime compared to America when you exclude exercises of human rights from America's gun deaths (suicide, self-defense).

And...the point would be? It actually further supports the right to bear arms. Criminals are criminals for a reason. They don't follow the law. So the left's answer is what here? Make it harder for law abiding citizens to have the ability to defend themselves because the criminals are still going to have the guns. Would have been interesting if they discussed how many of those would have not happened if the victim had a gun to defend themselves. Again the anti gun people prove how failed their logic is.

Further, what do smart criminals do? They figure out safe ways to steal from the people. One of the safest ways is to get into government and limit the methods that people can use to protect themselves.

Freedom of speech is a great weapon. Government is trying to limit it. But it is very difficult to limit something that people can do easily, all the time. It is much easier trying to limit guns.

The difficult thing for us is to keep the criminals in government so that they are all bunched together in one place. Then we need to limit their ability to limit us, without seeming like we are doing such. This way they will think that they are making progress in stealing from us, and we will be able to live our lives reasonably peacefully.

[1715398331]

1715398331

[1715398331]

1715398331

[alrachid]

I personally believe everyone should have guns, at least one in the home. If you check fbi.gov for gun death statistics you will find that the kinds of weapons most gun control people want to ban are things like ARs and 30 round clips. FBI.gov will show you that those kind of weapons are one of the least used in gun deaths, while pistols and shotguns, knives and fist often killing just as many if not more.

If you research the history of gun control globally you will find that many governments implement gun control and then start to abuse power. It's not just about being able to protect yourself if someone comes in your house, when the Law is being unlawful and needs to be regulated(civil war) it will be good to have a gun. Also the common argument that the non law abiding citizens will have them, and that is true. Chicago doesn't allow pistol carry permits and has probably the worst gun violence in the country, same with NYC NYC.

When our civilization falls like 100% of the "worlds most powerful" before us, it will be maybe good to have a gun, maybe it won't matter. I can't see so many reasons to have them, but almost no reasons to not have them...

[subSTRATA]

Hello

I do think Guns should be heavily controlled.

Around the world there are many deaths due to guns. This is normally due to instability in countries due to gangs, corruption and citizens feeling unsafe. It is true that citizens should be protected by the government, but when you have crazy people shooting anyone, it is wright to ask should there be more restrictions?

 
Cheers

heavy control if firearms only restrict availability to citizens who want them for protection of their home; laws wont stop criminals from getting their hands on them at all. itll make it harder, sure, but the laws themselves are incapable of stopping anyone who is willing to go the distance to acquire a firearm from getting one. if someone wants a gun and is both physically and mentally fit to wield one for its intended purpose of defense, then they should be allowed to.

I personally believe everyone should have guns, at least one in the home. If you check fbi.gov for gun death statistics you will find that the kinds of weapons most gun control people want to ban are things like ARs and 30 round clips. FBI.gov will show you that those kind of weapons are one of the least used in gun deaths, while pistols and shotguns, knives and fist often killing just as many if not more.

If you research the history of gun control globally you will find that many governments implement gun control and then start to abuse power. It's not just about being able to protect yourself if someone comes in your house, when the Law is being unlawful and needs to be regulated(civil war) it will be good to have a gun. Also the common argument that the non law abiding citizens will have them, and that is true. Chicago doesn't allow pistol carry permits and has probably the worst gun violence in the country, same with NYC NYC.

When our civilization falls like 100% of the "worlds most powerful" before us, it will be maybe good to have a gun, maybe it won't matter. I can't see so many reasons to have them, but almost no reasons to not have them...

i disagree with the first part of your thoughts, not everyone should be alllowed, only those that are mentally capable of using a firearm for its intended purpose. got anger issues or self control issues? nope, no gun for them.

[eddie13]

Very pro gun here. I think it is one of our absolutely most important rights, in the USA.

[christinalorence]

I agree with you. Guns are really a tools to protect our life. We need to utilize it in a proper way.

[Zaun]

Some people can use guns for protections for me opinion or for hunting or other entertaiming things.
But is just stupid that they are people who have gun and do it for bad things.

[Aggressor66]

Stronger gun control laws, logically, are the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Decreasing violence in movies,TV, video's, music etc. will also help. Any research done on the FBI's common findings, in the last 10 years, regarding USA mass shooters'  personal computer data, books, video's, movie collection, etc. ?

Proposed gun ownership regulations that fall well within the constitution (for starters):
- background checks mandatory at all selling points (including gun shows)
- no private transfers of ownership
- proof of gun safety training
- mandatory interviews and psychological testing
- 3-month waiting period
- mandatory gun locks
- $500 licence fee per gun
- minimum 10-year jail time for all crimes involving guns on top of normal sentencing

[Uncleft.]

Some people can use guns for protections for me opinion or for hunting or other entertaiming things.
But is just stupid that they are people who have gun and do it for bad things.

Yes, I think that sums up the point of this post.

[BADecker]

Some people can use guns for protections for me opinion or for hunting or other entertaiming things.
But is just stupid that they are people who have gun and do it for bad things.

Yes, I think that sums up the point of this post.

The question is, when do we limit guns in government and the military, since it is they who do more bad things to people, using guns, than anyone else does?

And who does the limiting of government and the military?

There is no answer to these questions... at least not an answer that works. The best idea is to give everyone big, powerful guns and lots of ammo, so that people can all protect themselves, and let nature take its course.

People without guns become slaves to people with guns.

[TheButterZone]

Stronger gun control laws, logically, are the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Decreasing violence in movies,TV, video's, music etc. will also help. Any research done on the FBI's common findings, in the last 10 years, regarding USA mass shooters'  personal computer data, books, video's, movie collection, etc. ?

Proposed gun ownership regulations that fall well within the constitution (for starters):
- background checks mandatory at all selling points (including gun shows)
- no private transfers of ownership
- proof of gun safety training
- mandatory interviews and psychological testing
- 3-month waiting period
- mandatory gun locks
- $500 licence fee per gun
- minimum 10-year jail time for all crimes involving guns on top of normal sentencing

Infringe all the civil rights then? Fuck you.

[bitsmichel]

Making owning guns illegal does not solve the problem of crime. In countries where gun ownership is illegal, there are still many gun crimes. This is because if guns are illegal, criminals still get guns. Either they order online or they get them from other criminals physically.

The problem is not guns but people. This cannot be solved with either making guns legal or illegal.

[Spendulus]

Stronger gun control laws, logically, are the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Decreasing violence in movies,TV, video's, music etc. will also help. Any research done on the FBI's common findings, in the last 10 years, regarding USA mass shooters'  personal computer data, books, video's, movie collection, etc. ?

Proposed gun ownership regulations that fall well within the constitution (for starters):
- background checks mandatory at all selling points (including gun shows)
- no private transfers of ownership
- proof of gun safety training
- mandatory interviews and psychological testing
- 3-month waiting period
- mandatory gun locks
- $500 licence fee per gun
- minimum 10-year jail time for all crimes involving guns on top of normal sentencing

Infringe all the civil rights then? Fuck you.

I second the "Fuck you."

Make no doubt about it, using a plethora of bureaucratic processes, fees, waits and such to cumulatively make it difficult to possess firearms is an active attempt to make an end run around the 2nd amendment.

And when it comes voting time, Democrats have never, ever been block anti-gun votes.  Never have, never will be.

"Interviews and psychological testing" Sure, buddy.  I'll go for that when you let me do interview and approvals for which liberals should be allowed to open their stupid mouths and chatter nonsense.

NOT A SINGLE THING OF YOUR IDEAS WOULD IMPACT CRIME OR TERRORISM ONE TINY BIT.

[TheButterZone]

Stronger gun control laws, logically, are the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Decreasing violence in movies,TV, video's, music etc. will also help. Any research done on the FBI's common findings, in the last 10 years, regarding USA mass shooters'  personal computer data, books, video's, movie collection, etc. ?

Proposed gun ownership regulations that fall well within the constitution (for starters):
- background checks mandatory at all selling points (including gun shows)
- no private transfers of ownership
- proof of gun safety training
- mandatory interviews and psychological testing
- 3-month waiting period
- mandatory gun locks
- $500 licence fee per gun
- minimum 10-year jail time for all crimes involving guns on top of normal sentencing

Infringe all the civil rights then? Fuck you.

I second the "Fuck you."

Make no doubt about it, using a plethora of bureaucratic processes, fees, waits and such to cumulatively make it difficult to possess firearms is an active attempt to make an end run around the 2nd amendment.

And when it comes voting time, Democrats have never, ever been block anti-gun votes.  Never have, never will be.

"Interviews and psychological testing" Sure, buddy.  I'll go for that when you let me do interview and approvals for which liberals should be allowed to open their stupid mouths and chatter nonsense.

NOT A SINGLE THING OF YOUR IDEAS WOULD IMPACT CRIME OR TERRORISM ONE TINY BIT.

They would, and do, make it infinitely worse.

[Spendulus]

Stronger gun control laws, logically, are the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Decreasing violence in movies,TV, video's, music etc. will also help. Any research done on the FBI's common findings, in the last 10 years, regarding USA mass shooters'  personal computer data, books, video's, movie collection, etc. ?

Proposed gun ownership regulations that fall well within the constitution (for starters):
- background checks mandatory at all selling points (including gun shows)
- no private transfers of ownership
- proof of gun safety training
- mandatory interviews and psychological testing
- 3-month waiting period
- mandatory gun locks
- $500 licence fee per gun
- minimum 10-year jail time for all crimes involving guns on top of normal sentencing

Infringe all the civil rights then? Fuck you.

I second the "Fuck you."

Make no doubt about it, using a plethora of bureaucratic processes, fees, waits and such to cumulatively make it difficult to possess firearms is an active attempt to make an end run around the 2nd amendment.

And when it comes voting time, Democrats have never, ever been block anti-gun votes.  Never have, never will be.

"Interviews and psychological testing" Sure, buddy.  I'll go for that when you let me do interview and approvals for which liberals should be allowed to open their stupid mouths and chatter nonsense.

NOT A SINGLE THING OF YOUR IDEAS WOULD IMPACT CRIME OR TERRORISM ONE TINY BIT.

They would, and do, make it infinitely worse.

No kidding.

And this is such total BS.  Every election in the USA, liberal politicians who have fell for the AntiGun crap are voted straight out of office.  Every single time.  The only exceptions are places like California and New York.  

And every time some despicable atrocity occurs, it's used as an excuse to wind up the propaganda machine yet one more time.

How to really fix this problem?  It's real simple.  It's for the Bad Guy to look at a crowd of people, wondering if they might be his victims.  And they look straight back at him, their eyes saying "Yeah, I'm carrying."

This is not complicated.  This is what sheriffs in the USA are telling people to do.

This is where we're headed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2173050/Do-NOT-steal-woman-s-towel-Heavily-armed-bikini-clad-female-Israeli-soldiers-mingle-Tel-Aviv-beachgoers.html

[Wilikon]

"Flowing Like Water." Obama's Speech Causes Gun Sales Spike


Barack Obama keeps padding his resume as the greatest gun salesman in history, and is causing gun, magazine,and ammunition sales to spike yet again:

    Gun and ammunition sales have been spiking in Wake County following President Obama’s Sunday prime-time address and the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., last week that left 14 people dead.

    Clay Ausley, the owner of Fuquay Gun & Gold, said shoppers are not just checking items off their Christmas lists, they are stocking up in anticipation that gun control laws will tighten.

    “We even saw an influx of customers coming in purchasing in fear of what (Obama) was going to say,” he said.

    Ausley said he started work at 4 a.m. Monday morning to replenish the stock.

    “With Obama making the statement that he wants to change legislation, get it to where its harder for the public to purchase high-capacity firearms, folks are going to start running to get what they can get ,” he said. “The heaviest hitters have been ammunition and high-capacity magazines. The AR mags, the AK mags – they have been flowing out of here like water.”

The anti-gun rhetoric of leading Democrats, and calls by some radical members of the New York media to gut the Second Amendment and even label National Rifle Association members as terrorists, led to the single greatest one day gun sales spike in American history just days ago.

Americans voted with their wallets, and purchased enough firearms to equip a militia the size of the U.S. Marine Corps with enough guns left over to equip two Army divisions.

But that was before the San Bernardino terrorist attacks on a Christmas party by a radicalized government employee and his jihadi bride, who came into the United States from Pakistan by exploiting weaknesses in the Obama Administration’s immigration schemes, and before the President’s prime-time Sunday night address that all but refused to blame the obvious role of Islamic terrorism in the attack, and instead attacked the right of Americans to own the very guns that brought these terrorists down.

Americans have since returned to their gun stores and are stocking up on more guns, magazines, optics, accouterments, and ammunition, anticipating a fight against enemies both foreign and domestic.


http://bearingarms.com/flowing-like-water-obamas-speech-causes-gun-sales-spike/

[the joint]

Stronger gun control laws, logically, are the best way to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Decreasing violence in movies,TV, video's, music etc. will also help. Any research done on the FBI's common findings, in the last 10 years, regarding USA mass shooters'  personal computer data, books, video's, movie collection, etc. ?

Proposed gun ownership regulations that fall well within the constitution (for starters):
- background checks mandatory at all selling points (including gun shows)
- no private transfers of ownership
- proof of gun safety training
- mandatory interviews and psychological testing
- 3-month waiting period
- mandatory gun locks
- $500 licence fee per gun
- minimum 10-year jail time for all crimes involving guns on top of normal sentencing

This is ridiculous.  You could try this, or you could try something that would actually work and not feed the problem.

You know what would go a long way towards solving gun violence?

1) Increase personal liberties and freedoms, and...
2) Promote our similarities rather than differences in education, media, and political and social rhetoric.

Why does this work?  Because people shoot enemies when they feel oppressed or supressed in some form or another.  In contrast, you know how to increase gun violence?  Make people feel as though they're excluded (socially, financially, racially, whatever) , and then reinforce their awareness of said exclusion by forcing regulations upon them that restrict their ability to obtain inclusion.  This model is applicable to virtually all shootings with any motive.

[Uncleft.]

My beliefs on gun control
1. Gun control is needed to maintain order in society.
2. We need to make it impossible for people with a criminal record or a mental illness to be able to get a gun.
3. We need to attach a unique tag to the bullets. This does not happen contrary to peoples beliefs. In the US only guns made after 2005 have a traceable bullet tag embedded within.

[Spendulus]

My beliefs on gun control
1. Gun control is needed to maintain order in society.
2. We need to make it impossible for people with a criminal record or a mental illness to be able to get a gun.
3. We need to attach a unique tag to the bullets. This does not happen contrary to peoples beliefs. In the US only guns made after 2005 have a traceable bullet tag embedded within.

1.  With "order" not defined or quantified, the sentence has no meaning.
2.  Cannot be done.  Existing law mandates this, but end runs around the law are possible.  Criminals don't get guns legally, duh....
3.  I don't know why we would want a unique tag n bullets.  No, people do not believe that currently exists.  And no, guns made after 2005 do not have a traceable bullet tags embedded.

What does this mean?  Every one of your beliefs is wrong?

[web2020]

The law abiding citizens will be at disadvantage because criminals will just laugh at your gun law.

If people have guns, then they can fight back the moment someone starts firing rather than running away from fear, you should at least be able to protect yourself.

In my rural province, people freely carry a gun; heck they even make their own. If you intrude at someone's property, it's a fair game, because you don't have a business to be there. That's a common knowledge among the inhabitants. If not gun, they will use their knife, because most are farmers.

[tvbcof]

The law abiding citizens will be at disadvantage because criminals will just laugh at your gun law.

If people have guns, then they can fight back the moment someone starts firing rather than running away from fear, you should at least be able to protect yourself.

In my rural province, people freely carry a gun; heck they even make their own. If you intrude at someone's property, it's a fair game, because you don't have a business to be there. That's a common knowledge among the inhabitants. If not gun, they will use their knife, because most are farmers.

In my area you cannot shoot anyone just because they've trespassed onto your property.  The trespasser must be posing a threat.  This seems logical and fair to me and I have no objections.  If you do shoot someone, you go to court to prove your case so they better not have an entrance wound in their back.  I personally think that the 'stand your ground' idea is stupid and counter-productive and leads to more problems than it solves.

It is actually very rare that a trespasser gets shot, and I've not heard of it happening in my area for many years.  Part of this is because there are not very many trespassers who are up to no good thanks to high rates of gun ownership.  Another part is that most homeowners are responsible, familiar with guns, and fairly level headed and don't shoot everything which moves.  I will say that were it to be the case that law abiding homeowners were reliably deprived of firearms in my area, trespass with the intent to do harm would skyrocket.  We have one of the poorest economies in the country and lots of drug use (especially meth.)

I have had people trespass on my property and have never felt threatened in an encounter.  In fact, I only 'pack heat' while investigating a trespass if it is at unusual times (e.g., 2:00 am) and/or there have been people who seem to have been casing the area.  Neighbors keep an eye out for such things.  So far everyone who has stopped in front of my driveway or driven partially down it in the middle of the night has moved on (and fairly quickly) when I shine a flashlight on them if not before.  They may sense (correctly) that a shotgun is among the options readily available to the property owner.  They don't know that except in the most extreme circumstances I would do nothing more than fire a warning shot into the air...and I'm perfectly happy if they have to guess about it.  99 times out of 100 a trespasser would be some dumb-shit kid or lost hunter or something and I would feel very bad shooting someone in such a situation.