What's your opinion of gun control?

[toddtervy]

Kill off anerica, then we could live safely.

Get rid of American movies.

More guns and ammo means more safety for those that have them.

Fewer guns and less ammo means less safety for those that don't have them.

What would you suggest for someone being stalked by organized cowardly little bitches?

Since "bitch" means a female dog, dogs around the world stalk lots of people at times. If you can't figure out what to do in your situation, once you get home, go to bed.

Wow, one stupidest responses I've heard.  Some kind of joke because I'm not in proper situation for laughs...

[1715351392]

1715351392

[mark coins]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And the criminals that kill peoples don't follow gun control laws anyways

[toddtervy]

Free people. Free guns for everyone. No more sissy bullshit.

[toddtervy]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And the criminals that kill peoples don't follow gun control laws anyways

Some people deserve to die.  Once upon a time we'd hang or otherwise execute our criminal.  Now stupid fucks are free to roam around and harass others, commit other crimes, and get a slap on the wrist.
As far as I'm concerned stalk/harass someone, you die.  All of a sudden the world becomes a better place.  It's debatable whether or not they subconsciously want to get killed and don't have the balls to off themselves so they're hoping someone else does.

[traderbit]

I am not for gun control. but owning a gun requires discipline and if you do not have this, you do not own the right to have a gun

[pungopete468]

I am not for gun control. but owning a gun requires discipline and if you do not have this, you do not own the right to have a gun

You should rephrase that since a "right" cannot be contingent on other criteria.

Gun control is irrelevant. Guns are but a single destructive technology in an arsenal of far more destructive technologies. Gun control is illogical, counter-productive, and extremely destructive towards human values within society. Gun control implies overtly on its face that there must exist a party who is "responsible" for "controlling" the constituents of society. Since gun control doesn't involve the abolition of guns, rather the re-distribution thereof, the results of a "gun control" campaign on a populace would be absolutely no different than a "gun re-distribution" campaign on that same population... It doesn't even take a creative mind to grasp the consequences of this implication...

[neochiny]

defenitly using a gun is depends on who used it.
and how it was used.and also depends to its environment.
in some country the used of guns is usually for the government only.
but i think gun control in some way is really good.
like i know in one country that even a 7 yr. old child uses it.
as it is their birthday gift from their parents.
and its their custom to have guns from childhood.

[Harry Hood]

Guns should exist, people should have a right to have them for hunting or protection.

The community should have the right to qualify people to own guns through a background check along with a standard test of laws and gun safety. If we regulate who can drive a car we should absolutely regulate who can operate a gun. When crazy people stop getting their hands on guns we can revisit the requirement for regulation.

That's my opinion.

[BADecker]

Guns should exist, people should have a right to have them for hunting or protection.

The community should have the right to qualify people to own guns through a background check along with a standard test of laws and gun safety. If we regulate who can drive a car we should absolutely regulate who can operate a gun. When crazy people stop getting their hands on guns we can revisit the requirement for regulation.

That's my opinion.

Good points.

The community DOES have a lot of say in everything. Properly brought, the local community can get issues before a 12-person jury that can make local changes. Most communities don't know this.

The community doesn't regulate car driving. The State does. And, judging by the way that there is a single style in the DMV websites for all the states, perhaps the Federal really does the regulating, behind the scenes.

The same problem exists with all this as with every other method of gun control. The 99% of the good people will knuckle under to the community rules. The crazy people may be too crazy to figure out how to break community rules. But the crooks and criminals and downright bad people will have as many guns as they want, under the floorboards in their house... no matter what the community rules are.

The only real benefits to gun controls like these are: 1) the training that the public will receive regarding gun usage and safety; 2) a feeling of security among a lot of cowardly community members, even though that security is a false security. The security is here now without the gun controls. It's just that the wimps don't know it.

[pungopete468]

If we regulate who can drive a car we should absolutely regulate who can operate a gun.

Interesting opinion, I'd only like to point out that determining what's "right" based on what's "done" cannot be an objective opinion, nor is it a historically accurate indicator. The underlying problem boils down to a much more basic question, which is at the root of any desire to ask the aforementioned question... "As a society, how can society decide who should be included in society?" Delegating rights among members of society creates subcultures, and inequalities, leading towards fatal vulnerabilities which ultimately will inevitably sap the production of and destroy the entire society...

If bad actors in society are able to rot the core of said society; rather than extinguishing and smothering the whole society by excessive (costly) regulation, shouldn't the bad actors simply be expelled, and society be allowed to prosper? Since money is a number defining the production (work) of society, shouldn't society be allowed to work efficiently with the lowest resistance possible? Regulation is inherently inefficient...

Based on this assertion, if an actors actions are bad enough to warrant expulsion from society, they additionally would've been disqualified under the alternate societal structure where their rights could have been delegated away from them... The difference is the cost of each process on the society, as well as the risk-reward ratio of becoming a bad actor in society...

Just food for thought...

[BADecker]

I am not for gun control. but owning a gun requires discipline and if you do not have this, you do not own the right to have a gun

No. You have the right to own a gun.   

[Spendulus]

Guns should exist, people should have a right to have them for hunting or protection.

The community should have the right to qualify people to own guns through a background check along with a standard test of laws and gun safety. If we regulate who can drive a car we should absolutely regulate who can operate a gun. When crazy people stop getting their hands on guns we can revisit the requirement for regulation.

That's my opinion.

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#CZtrxm2XgWDkPsFV.99

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

...more firearms, less crime....

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#eJB0Tbj7173AvUcu.99

[the joint]

Guns should exist, people should have a right to have them for hunting or protection.

The community should have the right to qualify people to own guns through a background check along with a standard test of laws and gun safety. If we regulate who can drive a car we should absolutely regulate who can operate a gun. When crazy people stop getting their hands on guns we can revisit the requirement for regulation.

That's my opinion.

Yes, we regulate cars heavily.  We check for adequate vision, administer written and road tests, impose restrictions for criminals or the disabled, etc.  And we still have tons of DUIs and related accidents/deaths. 

[LouisVuitton]

I think it is our right to be allowed to have guns. I don't think they should take our guns away I think that would be a very bad idea. The main point is a killer will get access to a gun or something that causes harm no matter what.

[BADecker]

I think it is our right to be allowed to have guns. I don't think they should take our guns away I think that would be a very bad idea. The main point is a killer will get access to a gun or something that causes harm no matter what.

Absolutely right!

If they are so scared of private property among people, are they going to take our cars away? Are we going to have to eat without spoons, forks and knives? We won't have chairs any longer because somebody might tear a leg off a chair and use it for a club? What about fists?; no more fists.

The answer is to place us all in strait-jackets so that we can't harm each other, or ourselves.

No! Wait. What about the ones who place us into strait-jackets? They can still go out and be violent with each other and us.

The answer >> Build robots that place every last human into a strait-jacket, and then feed us and wipe our backside afterward. Nobody can ever hurt anybody ever again.

[tvbcof]

On guns...I bought a 300 win mag today but have yet to get it in my grubby dick-skiners since I had to special order the thing.  Will be a nice addition to my growing gun collection, and quasi-necessary to utilize my land-owner preference elk tags.  I hope to take the creature from the ridge line while standing in my yard, and this caliber seems like it will be up to the task.  Furthermore, since I have like 4 months to fill my tags, I hope to analyze the herd for a while and pick out a nice tender subordinate cow.  The Fish-n-Game dude would prefer smaller herds in my area for reasons associated with carrying capacity, and if one avoids taking the lead cow then the herd is not disrupted at all.

This is a nice time to thank Visa and PayPal for trying to tell me how I could and could not spend my money in conjunction with Wikileaks, and to Wikileaks for stumbling across Bitcoin as a way to skirt the financial blockade (in addition to a range of other useful info such as the text to the TPP which only multi-national corporations are supposed to be able to see.)  That was how I heard about Bitcoin, and the happy accident of fate has resulted in fun toys like my new Savage to raining down on my head.

[Spendulus]

On guns...I bought a 300 win mag today but have yet to get it in my grubby dick-skiners since I had to special order the thing.  Will be a nice addition to my growing gun collection, and quasi-necessary to utilize my land-owner preference elk tags.  I hope to take the creature from the ridge line while standing in my yard.....

Standing?  So you are going to have to put the beer down?



All those people shouting for gun control need to look at the science.

Like this -

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

...more firearms, less crime....

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#eJB0Tbj7173AvUcu.99

Unless, of course, they want to be branded Science Deniers!

[BADecker]

On guns...I bought a 300 win mag today but have yet to get it in my grubby dick-skiners since I had to special order the thing.  Will be a nice addition to my growing gun collection, and quasi-necessary to utilize my land-owner preference elk tags.  I hope to take the creature from the ridge line while standing in my yard.....

Standing?  So you are going to have to put the beer down?



All those people shouting for gun control need to look at the science.

Like this -

According to a study in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, which cites the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation, the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity.

...more firearms, less crime....

Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Articles/Harvard-University-Study-Reveals-Astonishing-Link.aspx?p=1#eJB0Tbj7173AvUcu.99

Unless, of course, they want to be branded Science Deniers!

The practical evidence of this is seen in various cities and areas around the world. In the States, in Chicago, there are places where the police fear going because of the gun freedom existing there.

There are States in lower Mexico that are some of the safest places in the world, if you follow and obey cartel law. The cartels work with the people and the people are protected by the cartels. Even the Mexican military dreads going down there.

It's all about guns.

[Mikestang]

The problem isn't guns, the problem is people.  Joe Rogan likes to point out that the US has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem.  Most of my friend's and I are gun owners.  We hunt or target shoot or, in my case, carry for protection when I'm out in the middle of the Mojave desert (never know what or who you'll run into in the wild, wild west).  Normal, well balanced, educated gun owners are an asset to civilized society.  Crazy people, especially crazy people with guns, is a problem.

But several of the recent shooting could have been, maybe not prevented, but the casualties greatly reduced had there been a properly trained and armed gun owner present.  In one situation at a school there were several off-duty police officers who were forced to leave their guns in their vehicles because the school is a "no gun zone".  Well obviously no one pointed out that sign to the crazy guy with a gun who shot a bunch of people.  Had the off-duty law enforcement been properly armed they could have subdued the situation immediately.

I am often dumbstruck by the fact that the majority of people calling for "gun control" do not own and have never owned firearms themselves.

[TheButterZone]

I am often dumbstruck by the fact that the majority of people calling for "gun control" do not own and have never owned firearms themselves.

Except more and more we're finding out they do 1) own guns 2) employ men with guns 3) use their guns to commit violent crimes 4) fail to control their own guns which are then criminally or accidentally fired.