What's your opinion of gun control?

[Spendulus]

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

Ever had a bear try to break down your back door when your wife was cooking dinner?

How about alligators?

Encountered any nests of rattlesnakes lately?

Been close to a pack of wolves?

Human predators are not much different, I guess.

[Pathi]

Just remember, When seconds count the police are only minutes away....

[xht]

I do not own a gun, but if I did it would be under my control and if it went out and shot someone I would punish it severely. I would take the bullets out so it would not get out of control.
More

[Spendulus]

I do not own a gun, but if I did it would be under my control and if it went out and shot someone I would punish it severely. I would take the bullets out so it would not get out of control.
More

This is a great idea.  Give the gun 1000 lashes if it shoots someone. 

Actually that goes back to the beginnings of the concepts of "tort law."  For example, if a horse killed someone, the horse was always executed.

The idea of money for damages instead of an "eye for an eye" arose with commercial cargo and passenger ships, where money interests wouldn't stand for the idea of destroying a ship that killed a man.  So they paid off instead.

[Spendulus]

Here's some gun control.

Not one drop spilled...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18362/tank-carry-beer/

[BADecker]

Obama White House: Terrorists Will Stop Attacking if We Pass Gun Control Laws


  <<< Click the picture.

Reporter Peter Doocy asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest: “Does the President really think that common sense gun laws would deter terrorists now that he has admitted that these two may have been terrorists?”

“Yes. The president believes that passing common sense gun laws that makes it harder for people with bad intentions to get guns, makes the country safer,” responded Earnest.

“But so the president thinks that when there are potentially two terrorists sitting around planning a mass murder they may call it off because President Obama has put in place common sense gun laws?” Doocy shot back.

“Why wouldn’t we make it harder for them? What’s the explanation for that?” responded Earnest.

The Obama White House is essentially arguing that passing more gun laws which disarm law-abiding citizens will somehow make jihadists, who have access to international terrorist contacts and back-door weapons smuggling rings, less determined and less capable of carrying out massacres.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-white-house-terrorists-will-stop-attacking-if-we-pass-gun-control-laws.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90brlna4YXI


Sounds like Obama thinks he is controlling the terrorists. What if he is? What if he is behind all the terrorist shootings in America? If he were, he could make the claim that Terrorists Will Stop Attacking if We Pass Gun Control Laws. But would you believe him?

[vero]

                                                 End the Gun Epidemic in America

​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

[Spendulus]

                                                End the Gun Epidemic in America

​It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Are  you fucking kidding?

When an editor of Rolling Stone refutes bogus government numbers parroted by the NYT IN THE New York Times about mass shootings, you know that there is a weird bit of disinformation going on...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html?_r=1

[tvbcof]

...
These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Insurrection was specifically what arms were considered for at the time of our nation's founding and it is specifically why the right to bear them was specified in the 2nd.  In studying some of their work, I think that it is fair to say that many of the most brilliant of those setting up the republic had both a deep and rounded understanding of government theory and history, and significant concerns about what they were setting up.  Were it to go sour they would have rather seen it fold than continue to it's conclusion.  That is how I read things at least.

[BADecker]

...
These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

Insurrection was specifically what arms were considered for at the time of our nation's founding and it is specifically why the right to bear them was specified in the 2nd.  In studying some of their work, I think that it is fair to say that many of the most brilliant of those setting up the republic had both a deep and rounded understanding of government theory and history, and significant concerns about what they were setting up.  Were it to go sour they would have rather seen it fold than continue to it's conclusion.  That is how I read things at least.

At the same time, it wasn't the 2nd that gave that right. The right is inherent in people, by common law (not governmentally defined common law, rather natural common law). The reason why the 2nd, and the whole Bill of Rights exist, is to simply lay it out clearly in the open for government people to see some of their limitations.

All rights are inherent in the people. Government doesn't give, and can't take away any rights except in the case of where one person harms another, or damages his property. In fact, property protection for the individual is the only reason for government to exist at all. The absolute ONLY reason.

[hungsanh2512]

I don't know a lot about gun laws being in the UK, but I get the impression that America seems to be a lot worse with gun crime in comparison to Canada. Am I just not hearing about as many stories from Canada or is it worse in America?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

I don't know a lot about gun laws being in the UK, but I get the impression that America seems to be a lot worse with gun crime in comparison to Canada. Am I just not hearing about as many stories from Canada or is it worse in America?

The hoaxes and False Flags are worse.

Why Have There Been More Mass Shootings Under Obama than the Four Previous Presidents Combined?

"(Truthstream Media) We live in a world of short-term memories and long-term memory deficiencies. If the 24-hour news cycle was any indication, Americans appear to be bouncing from one catastrophic mass shooting to the next, with hardly any breathing room. Like this is just a regular occurrence America has learned to endure because… guns. It’s the prevalence of firearms in the hands of the people, the anti-gunners say. Calls to limit, rewrite, redefine, or outright dispose of the 2nd Amendment are rampant.

But no one is looking at the data. If they did, they would realize something is really, really, really wrong here.

No, there haven’t always been so many mass shootings. It hasn’t always been this way. Mass shootings have skyrocketed in this country just in the last seven years under President Obama.

The following was compiled using the database over at Mother Jones on mass shootings in the U.S. from 1982—2015, up to and including the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon on October 1st, 2015. It also includes the Wikipedia lists for mass shootings in the United States by year and postal killings in the U.S.

The following analysis considers the FBI’s definition of a mass murder, which is defined as “a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders”.

When all incidents where four or more people were shot in a single event are broken out by president going back to Reagan (considering the database only stretches back to 1982), there just so happens to have been a startling increase in mass shootings since Obama, the most pro-gun control president America has had in modern history, took office.

    Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents

    Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
    Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

    George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
    Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3

    Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
    Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4

    George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
    Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5

    Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2015 (in 7th year) 162 mass murders
    Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 18

(You can download the full list of names, dates, locations, and numbers of deaths per mass shooting by president prepared for this article here.)

Look at the difference between all other presidents and Barack Obama.

What that looks like on a chart:



Notice anything here? We’re talking about a more than six-fold increase from the number of mass shootings in the eight years Bush Jr. was president compared to the last seven years under Obama, and his 2nd term isn’t even up yet!

Not only that, but the number of mass shootings where the shooter killed eight or more people has also increased rather significantly:

What is going on here?

Obviously this isn’t so easily simplified as more guns in the hands of more crazy people, the way the media likes to spin it. We have more gun laws now than ever before. Less types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever before. We also have more “gun-free zones,” zones where, just by the way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow laws or care about zones, obviously). So that’s not it....."

[zivone]

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.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Who thinks it will be about gun control? Any bets on if we have another active shooter drill tomorrow before the conference to get people to agree with him because they've been terrorized by him into thinking any moment there may be a gun attack?

Video: Obama To Address Nation, SUNDAY, 8 PM; Might it be about Guns?

[tvbcof]

...
[im  https://i.imgur.com/nml8dU5.png  mg]
...
We also have more “gun-free zones,” zones where, just by the way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow laws or care about zones, obviously). So that’s not it....."[/i]

The only thing which makes much sense is that most of these events are engineered psychological operations.  Happily most of them seem to be hoaxes (no dead bodies) but eventually they are likely to turn into 'false flags' and some might be already (especially those carried out overseas.)  That unfortunate shift would be a legacy of the 'truthers' since it turns out to be damn difficult to stage an event and not have it be full of holes.

As for the 'gun-free zone' location of these events, the operations would be complicated significantly if there were interference by law-abiding concealed carry citizens.  A venue which avoids this eventuality as much as possible makes a great deal of sense.

It is also interesting that the stages tend to be ones which are fairly easy to lock-down.  This allows confiscation of electronics and embarrassing videos/images popping up and conflicting with official narratives (which tend to be built and solidified in the course of the following few days while initial reports often vary significantly.)  When we see people lined up with their hands on their heads exiting locked down zones and the police patting them down, the phones are going bye-bye.  At least that's what I heard reports of from Roseburg.  If one is 'lucky' enough to get video from a 'drill', I would think about extracting the MicroSD and tucking it away into a safe place in a timely manner.  But then again, doing so might get you in a whole heap of trouble so if you want a trouble-free life, maybe just go with the flow.

[hunnaryb]

I think guns are part of society now. One could always argue that carrying a gun is only fair as everyone else might have one. But that circular and recursive argument wouldn't exist if guns simply were illegal.

In any case, its not like in developed countries where guns are legal, there are any more murders, sure more are gun-related, but the overall percentage remains at large the same as countries where murders are being committed other ways.

[Ayoko]

Some High class people use guns as business others for personal purposes. But I think the people who use guns as business will not be affected by this. Why? cause its there business.

And when we talk about high class people i mean the High ranking people in the government. or terrorsits

[johnsmith1964]

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.

[TheButterZone]

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).

[zenitzz]

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.