What's your opinion of gun control?

[Spendulus]

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

Most police are less qualified to use a gun than most civilians whom I know whom have guns.  The exception is some police who are Iraq/Afgan veterans, or whom are sport shooters, or on special detail like SWAT team and have special training.  But cops in many areas are required ONLY to do 50 rounds through their service weapon per year.  In other areas it might be 50 rounds per 3 month period.

Maybe it's just that I know guys who train regularly, so there is bias. 

The "Concealed Carry License" in the USA varies per state, but typical is 50 rounds for qualification, and it is then good for something like four years.

There is no training required in most US states for simply buying and owning a weapon.

Contrary to what you've asserted, there is no "non-lethal alternative" which will substitute for a firearm.

[1715253008]

1715253008

[1715253008]

1715253008

[1715253008]

1715253008

[subSTRATA]

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here.

[Spendulus]

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here.

I'm not disagreeing with you but my impression was that he was talking about civilians on the street, subways, around town carrying weapons, not home defense.

Just happens i believe we need to address in city defense, as well as home defense.

[D3ViL]

only cowards use gun , why would you need a gun in the first place , u think middle east a dangerous place , its not ,US is the most dangerous place as u can hear abt gun violence on a daily basis

[mOgliE]

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here.

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

[TheButterZone]

Mental disorders are genetics, so, a DNA test is necessary if someone wants to buy a gun.

So the only place guns can be sold is the black market then, because DNA tests being used for pre-crime is Philip K. Dick-level science fiction.

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

Bold-faced sociopathic bullshit.

u think middle east a dangerous place , its not ,US is the most dangerous place

The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns

Cite or perish, along with the violent criminals (100% of them) who support "gun control" and any means to achieve that end.

[mOgliE]

u think middle east a dangerous place , its not ,US is the most dangerous place

The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns

Cite or perish, along with the violent criminals (100% of them) who support "gun control" and any means to achieve that end.

Cite or perish? I don't understand sorry.

So whe should do just the opposite of what criminals want? Damn, it's a shame most of them are more than happy to be able to use internet to buys illegal stuff. Well let's ban the internet then!

[TheButterZone]

u think middle east a dangerous place , its not ,US is the most dangerous place

The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns

Cite or perish, along with the violent criminals (100% of them) who support "gun control" and any means to achieve that end.

Cite or perish? I don't understand sorry.

So whe should do just the opposite of what criminals want? Damn, it's a shame most of them are more than happy to be able to use internet to buys illegal stuff. Well let's ban the internet then!

Criminals are more than happy to get prosecuted for buying illegal stuff over the internet, since law enforcement could be 99.99999% of the "sellers" of same (or running DNMs as honeypots), behind the internet's cloak of anonymity?

Criminals want the #1A-protected internet banned/infringed, because that's exactly how the human right to self-defense, and all other human rights defended by same, are gaining ground!

Yes, we should do exactly the opposite of what violent criminals want. They don't want to be shot? They can stop fucking being violent criminals.

[mOgliE]

Yeah let everyone own a gun and let usa still be (by far) the first country in deaths by firearms!

Doesn't matter if 99% of the time the people killed by being shot by other citizens were totally innocent of anything. It's the constitution!

[Agraoclya]

Even though I don't live in the US. I do think there should be some gun control over there.
It's not a hobby anymore, everyone can own a gun and everyone has easy access to it, it's just way too dangerous

[mOgliE]

Even though I don't live in the US. I do think there should be some gun control over there.
It's not a hobby anymore, everyone can own a gun and everyone has easy access to it, it's just way too dangerous

That's different. I rather agree with you, any kind of gun control must be really long term. Cause now that they fucked up and that everybody owns a gun, it's going to be difficult to control anything.

But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done!

[subSTRATA]

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here.

I'm not disagreeing with you but my impression was that he was talking about civilians on the street, subways, around town carrying weapons, not home defense.

Just happens i believe we need to address in city defense, as well as home defense.

good point, and concealed carry in public is a matter in itself, i was just using one example of a possible scenario that popped up in my head for this.
 

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here.

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.

[mOgliE]

did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.

Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns?
The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers.

[subSTRATA]

did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.

Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns?
The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers.

i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago.

[mOgliE]

did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.

Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns?
The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers.

i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago.

Oh, and how do you confirm that someone is a responsible and cool headed citizen before giving him a gun?

If you're assertion becomes "let's every intelligent, aware and polite citizen the right to own a gun" I'm 100% with you man. But if only intelligent people own a gun, they're won't be a lot of gun owners xD

And I don't see how you measure it!

[BADecker]

Question of the Day: Is a "Gun Free Zone" Property Owner Responsible for A Disarmed Visitor’s Safety?

"If a Tennessee grocery store bans guns on its property and a black bear or wild hog kills or injures a person who otherwise would be carrying his or her gun," tennessean.com reports, "the gun owner would be allowed to sue the property owner if a newly introduced bill became law."

Uh, I don't think Senator Delores Gresham introduced Senate Bill 1736 to protect licensed gun owners from bear or hog attacks. It makes property owners liable if they disarm someone and that someone gets waylaid by a two-legged varmint. It's an idea that's been floating around TTAG for a while. So, now that it's in play (albeit without a chance of passage) how about it? Good idea? Workable? What?

Read more at http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-is-a-gun-free-zone-property-owner-responsible-for-a-disarmed-visitors-safety/.

[subSTRATA]

did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.

Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns?
The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers.

i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago.

Oh, and how do you confirm that someone is a responsible and cool headed citizen before giving him a gun?

If you're assertion becomes "let's every intelligent, aware and polite citizen the right to own a gun" I'm 100% with you man. But if only intelligent people own a gun, they're won't be a lot of gun owners xD

And I don't see how you measure it!

im not going to claim i know because i dont, im sure there are others in this thread more knowledgeable on the whole permit / license acquiring process that can say more on the matter though.
 

[Spendulus]

did i ever say breaking into homes was all that happens? its just one scenario, i leave it to your common sense to apply the concept to other possible, more general scenarios, that only a gun is going to help stop a gunman.

Could we do the reverse work and think about all the cases in the 11 000 deaths by firearm every year in the USA without any kind of "scenario" justifying the use of guns?
The number of deaths simply because two people are arguing and the rise of violence leads to gun use. Like this wonderful trend of people shooting each other on the roads because they think they're terrible drivers.

i dont know about you, but i dont hear about people shooting each other up full of lead every time they have an argument, and if a gun owner can't keep a cool head, they shouldnt be owning a gun in the first place. the point of owning a firearm is to use as a last resort if deescalating a situation reaches the point of no return. any sensible gun owner should make it their goal to deescalate any conflict at all times. trust me, if people were shooting each other up because they thought they were terrible drivers, my city would have been wiped off of this plane of existence a long time ago.

Oh, and how do you confirm that someone is a responsible and cool headed citizen before giving him a gun?

If you're assertion becomes "let's every intelligent, aware and polite citizen the right to own a gun" I'm 100% with you man. But if only intelligent people own a gun, they're won't be a lot of gun owners xD

And I don't see how you measure it!

im not going to claim i know because i dont, im sure there are others in this thread more knowledgeable on the whole permit / license acquiring process that can say more on the matter though.
 

By these guys logic we should ban anyone who has ever drank alcohol from getting a driver's license, since they might get drunk and cause an accident.

[mOgliE]

By these guys logic we should ban anyone who has ever drank alcohol from getting a driver's license, since they might get drunk and cause an accident.

By these guy logic, you should take example on all the civilized countries that have lower crimes rates, lower deaths by firearms and lower mass shootings (never in fact) and understand that if anyone have a gun, it's not safer that if no one have a gun, except a few violents criminals that don't use it cause they know they'll get found easily if they do. And yes, criminals don't use their guns 99% of the time, at least in Europe, maybe we don't have the same criminals. And maybe it's because it's legal to have an ak47 in the USA.

[Spendulus]

By these guys logic we should ban anyone who has ever drank alcohol from getting a driver's license, since they might get drunk and cause an accident.

By these guy logic, you should take example on all the civilized countries that have lower crimes rates, lower deaths by firearms and lower mass shootings (never in fact)

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers_%28Europe%29

and understand that if anyone have a gun, it's not safer that if no one have a gun, except a few violents criminals that don't use it cause they know they'll get found easily if they do. And yes, criminals don't use their guns 99% of the time, at least in Europe, maybe we don't have the same criminals. And maybe it's because it's legal to have an ak47 in the USA.

Well, maybe you don't have the same criminals...

Then again, I am certain there are areas of Dublin, or Sarajevo, or Glasgow, or Moscova, or Tirana, that you would not be safe to go into unarmed.  Or Napoli, Belgrade, Sophia, Nottingham, or Limerick.