What's your opinion of gun control?

[bryant.coleman]

In Singapore, no one is allowed to have gun - only the authority (police etc) can have. Thus, there is no need to be afraid that someone would came into your house and start shooting. You say the police? Well.. Singapore wain the top ten least corruption list 2014..

ROFLMAO.... You can't even compare Singapore with high crime countries such as the United States and Mexico. Violent crimes are extremely rare in Singapore, as the punishments are severe. The population is law abiding. There are no major ethnic gangs in Singapore and the police force is thoroughly professional.

[jayce]

In Singapore, no one is allowed to have gun - only the authority (police etc) can have. Thus, there is no need to be afraid that someone would came into your house and start shooting. You say the police? Well.. Singapore wain the top ten least corruption list 2014..

So, I think other country should implant the same law Singapore have. No one should be allowed to have gun.

There are some situation differences between Singapore and other countries. You could said that because you are living in peaceful area, and I think Singapore is the best place. But, what would you do if you are living in full of crime place, which there are evil guys around your house. You need a tool that can secure your family and home from them.

[TheButterZone]

In Singapore, no one is allowed to have gun - only the authority (police etc) can have. Thus, there is no need to be afraid that someone would came into your house and start shooting. You say the police? Well.. Singapore wain the top ten least corruption list 2014..

ROFLMAO.... You can't even compare Singapore with high crime countries such as the United States and Mexico. Violent crimes are extremely rare in Singapore, as the punishments are severe. The population is law abiding. There are no major ethnic gangs in Singapore and the police force is thoroughly professional.

Violent criminals can't be punished if they aren't caught. I'm surprised to hear that there is 1 police officer per potential victim in Singapore to ensure that effectively no violent crime can occur without a police officer able to catch the violent criminal instantly.

[TECSHARE]

In Singapore, no one is allowed to have gun - only the authority (police etc) can have. Thus, there is no need to be afraid that someone would came into your house and start shooting. You say the police? Well.. Singapore wain the top ten least corruption list 2014..

So, I think other country should implant the same law Singapore have. No one should be allowed to have gun.

Singapore banned chewing gum and will also cane you for not flushing a public toilet. Sounds like laws every country should aspire to.

[HigsonPP]

I'am personally against owning a gun  but with too .
I like it how my country do it basically , please don't take this the wrong way I don't mean that normal citizens with average income have a cheap life .
Well basically here to own a gun you simply to be a Business man or something important on the society , that's all . and to be honest it's better that way , and killing here is a lot less then countries that allows owning guns .

i agree with you normal citizens dont need a gun but buisness men on the other hand run a larger risk so having bodyguards and carrying a gun is pretty natural for a rich buisnessman

[mayflor2]

In Singapore, no one is allowed to have gun - only the authority (police etc) can have. Thus, there is no need to be afraid that someone would came into your house and start shooting. You say the police? Well.. Singapore wain the top ten least corruption list 2014..

So, I think other country should implant the same law Singapore have. No one should be allowed to have gun.

Singapore banned chewing gum and will also cane you for not flushing a public toilet. Sounds like laws every country should aspire to.

Haha, really? You just burn that guy. On a funny note, did you know about the bathing baby law of cali?

In Los Angeles, It is not legal to bathe two babies at the same time in the same tub :p

There are more insane laws in cali like these:

In Riverside, Kissing on the lips, unless both parties wipe their lips with carbonized rose water, is against the local health ordinance.

In Walnut, No person shall wear a mask or disguise on a public street without a permit from the sheriff.

More here: http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php

[bryant.coleman]

Singapore banned chewing gum and will also cane you for not flushing a public toilet. Sounds like laws every country should aspire to.

The laws against vandalism are quite tough in Singapore. The country banned chewing gum, as tourists were spitting it all over the place. I am not saying that other countries should copy Singapore, but crime rate is so low there for a reason. In Singapore, no one can evade law (unlike the United States and South Africa), and if you are not ready to obey the laws, it will be better to immigrate to some other country.

[Jason]

Slightly off-topic, but while some people may be tempted to admire little city-states like Singapore for their tough laws and low crime rates, let's not forget that there is a flip side to that coin:

Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, said a company like Apple could not emerge in societies like Singapore where “bad behavior is not tolerated” and people are not taught to think for themselves.

“Look at structured societies like Singapore where bad behavior is not tolerated [and] you are extremely punished” Mr. Wozniak said in a recent interview with the BBC. “Where are the creative people? Where are the great artists? Where are the great musicians? Where are the great writers?”

(Excerpted from http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesiarealtime/2011/12/15/wozniak-apple-couldnt-emerge-in-singapore/)

[kuroman]

Short answer : not working.

To be honest making guns available is the worst mistake there is to be done, it makes crimes more extreme, people and police reactions and acts more extreme and deaths more likely to happen. And what makes matter is the mentality of thinking that if anyone can access to a gun then I need a gun myself to defend my self, making even more guns that are easily available .... rather than plainly asking for the removal of such gun from other persons.

[the joint]

Well that's a neat little piece of information that tells you almost absolutely nothing.  If that's your basis for your opinion, you've chosen a context the size of a peep hole.

It seems like rather a straightforward statistic to me. In what way am I fudging it?

Because if you isolate that statistic, North Korea looks a heck of a lot better than the United States.  

[Beliathon]

[dblink]

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.

Guns are dangerous too, for those who knows very well how to use them. But I agree with you that Guns are made to only kill. There is no control now to stop these types of serial killing machines. We have to push ourselves to get accustomed on such killing scenarios. I have one curious doubt ? how many girls are used their gun when they have been assaulted or molested. 

[Beliathon]

As long as we as a society hold profit-making as sacred, we will never claw our way out of this violent hell we've put ourselves into.

[TECSHARE]

I'am personally against owning a gun  but with too .
I like it how my country do it basically , please don't take this the wrong way I don't mean that normal citizens with average income have a cheap life .
Well basically here to own a gun you simply to be a Business man or something important on the society , that's all . and to be honest it's better that way , and killing here is a lot less then countries that allows owning guns .

i agree with you normal citizens dont need a gun but buisness men on the other hand run a larger risk so having bodyguards and carrying a gun is pretty natural for a rich buisnessman

Can you explain to me then why rich people have more of a right to defend themselves than everyone else? You claim they run a larger risk , but it is pretty clear some one living in the ghetto is at more risk of being victimized than a business man who lives in a nice safe neighborhood, even in spite of the fact that he has more to steal.

Short answer : not working.
To be honest making guns available is the worst mistake there is to be done, it makes crimes more extreme, people and police reactions and acts more extreme and deaths more likely to happen. And what makes matter is the mentality of thinking that if anyone can access to a gun then I need a gun myself to defend my self, making even more guns that are easily available .... rather than plainly asking for the removal of such gun from other persons.

And based on what data do you make these conclusions? What makes you think "asking for the removal of such gun from other persons" will some how stop violent crime? Last I checked most criminals do not react well to a polite request to not victimize people.

pictures

I know forming your own words and opinions are hard, because it means you might have to think and take responsibility for your words, but why do that when you can just post snarky political cartoons? If only life could be summed up by cartoons.

As long as we as a society hold profit-making as sacred, we will never claw our way out of this violent hell we've put ourselves into.

Right... because violence never existed before capitalism came around...
Way to dictate the premise of the conversation so you can shoehorn in your unrelated political beliefs again.

[kuroman]

And based on what data do you make these conclusions? What makes you think "asking for the removal of such gun from other persons" will some how stop violent crime? Last I checked most criminals do not react well to a polite request to not victimize people.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11?r=US having the highest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html
http://www.rawstory.com/2013/09/u-s-murder-rate-higher-than-nearly-all-other-developed-countries-fbi-data/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/chart-the-u-s-has-far-more-gun-related-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2011/12/23/why-america-is-more-violent-than-other-democracies
http://www.humanosphere.org/science/2014/03/visualizing-gun-deaths-comparing-the-u-s-to-rest-of-the-world/

Do you need more? I can post another dozen if you find these not conclusive, I thought I was stating the obvious hence I didn't provided the source of the data but I hope now you've changed your opinion.

[the joint]

 ”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun) and hand them over to someone else in exchange for protection, you are acknowledging a few things:

1) You acknowledge that someone(s) is more capable of protecting you than yourself.

2) You acknowledge that that you are content with being at the mercy of the decisions of those to whom you have conceded your freedoms.

3) You acknowledge that the extent to which you continue to have liberties is determined by those to whom you gave up your others.

 
So, here's the question of the day:  If you believe you are not best suited to handle the security of yourself, then how can you conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?

[TECSHARE]

And based on what data do you make these conclusions? What makes you think "asking for the removal of such gun from other persons" will some how stop violent crime? Last I checked most criminals do not react well to a polite request to not victimize people.

(articles)

Do you need more? I can post another dozen if you find these not conclusive, I thought I was stating the obvious hence I didn't provided the source of the data but I hope now you've changed your opinion.

You didn't really answer my question, but I expected nothing less. Gun control pushers often consider that their opinions are just a matter of fact, it is a pattern that is quite common. There has already been debate in this thread about gun violence vs overall crime. You linked a bunch of articles, not studies. The articles backed by studies use statistics about "gun deaths" which include suicides, self defensive uses of guns, and police use of guns. These statistics are paraded about as if they represent the gun MURDER rate, which is completely disingenuous.

Yes, the US has more gun deaths because there are more guns available, but it ALSO has a lower overall crime rate, including violent crime. Additionally jurisdictions with high gun ownership have less crime. You will also find that the jurisdictions that have the most gun deaths are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. So in short, no you haven't proven anything or changed my opinion. BTW do you even live in the US? I find it funny that people in other countries are so concerned about the safety of US citizens while most US citizens are pro gun rights. I wonder why that is. You would think if guns were responsible for all of this Americans would reject them.

[kuroman]

”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun) and hand them over to someone else in exchange for protection, you are acknowledging a few things:

1) You acknowledge that someone(s) are more capable of protecting you than yourself.

2) You acknowledge that that you are content with being at the mercy of the decisions of those to whom you have conceded your freedoms.

3) You acknowledge that the extent to which you continue to have liberties is determined by those to whom you gave up your others.

 
So, here's the question of the day:  If you believe you are not best suited to handle the security of yourself, then how can conclude that sacrificing liberties for security was the best idea to begin with?

Rights should stop when other people rights are jeopardized, Guns are tools made to kill, giving people the liberty to own a gun just like that is irresponsible and it doesn't just put the owner the danger but everyone around, and as proven with the best above, guns ownership by any individual have the opposite effects.

You didn't really answer my question, but I expected nothing less. Gun control pushers often consider that their opinions are just a matter of fact, it is a pattern that is quite common. There has already been debate in this thread about gun violence vs overall crime. You linked a bunch of articles, not studies. The articles backed by studies use statistics about "gun deaths" which include suicides, self defensive uses of guns, and police use of guns. These statistics are paraded about as if they represent the gun MURDER rate, which is completely disingenuous.

Yes, the US has more gun deaths because there are more guns available, but it ALSO has a lower overall crime rate, including violent crime. Additionally jurisdictions with high gun ownership have less crime. You will also find that the jurisdictions that have the most gun deaths are the ones with the most restrictive gun laws. So in short, no you haven't proven anything or changed my opinion. BTW do you even live in the US? I find it funny that people in other countries are so concerned about the safety of US citizens while most US citizens are pro gun rights. I wonder why that is. You would think if guns were responsible for all of this Americans would reject them.

Obviously you didn't even read any of the articles, maybe you should reread and check the data, statistics and studies that they are written upon and based on. So yes I've answered your question on point, on the other hand, you are the one here just stating your opinion without backing your claims.

So first of all lets discuss the data and statistics from the articles I posted (which are NOT opinions if you can't see the difference), in regards to what I mentioned in my initial posts and lets check if the only confirms what I said or not, instead of dodging.

[Beliathon]

”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

Actually, Franklin never wrote those words. First of all, the correct quote is “Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

It was first seen in An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania in 1759; the book was written by one Richard Jackson, Ben Franklin was merely the publisher.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)

You have no rights. You have privileges granted by your government, these can be taken away at any time of their choosing.

[the joint]

”Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” -- Ben Franklin

Actually, Franklin never said that.

If you, as a person, give up your freedoms (like the right to carry a gun)

You have no rights. You have privileges.

Fair enough.  I had actually thought it was Jefferson from memory, but to double check I just Googled the quote, and it popped up as Franklin.

Still, who said it, or if nobody said it, changes nothing.

And correction:  YOU have priviliges.  I have freedoms.  Try to take them away from me.  I dare you.