What's your opinion of gun control?

[Wilikon]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/25/26-democrats-who-participated-gun-control-sit-are-gun-owners

Does you even understand that gun control doesn't mean guns will be forbidden?  That maybe it just means for forbiding shotguns for example (which are a well known self defense weapons of course xD)

No I does not.

[1714042502]

1714042502

[1714042502]

1714042502

[mOgliE]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/06/25/26-democrats-who-participated-gun-control-sit-are-gun-owners

Does you even understand that gun control doesn't mean guns will be forbidden?  That maybe it just means for forbiding shotguns for example (which are a well known self defense weapons of course xD)

No I does not.

Avoiding an argument by mocking a grammar mistake. You seem like someone incredibly bright. Sorry I sometimes make a mistake in a none native language...

The arrogance of some people ><

[squatz1]

Fucking democrats... being protected by people with guns and OWNING them themselves but they go ahead and try to take the right away from their constituents from owning a gun / making it so hard they people give up.

[C10H15N]

Fucking democrats... being protected by people with guns and OWNING them themselves but they go ahead and try to take the right away from their constituents from owning a gun / making it so hard they people give up.

Darling Hillary has had round the clock armed guards (Secret Service) at her disposal, paid for by the taxpayers, for the past 25 years.  This will continue for the rest of her life whether she is elected President or not.   Being an entitled elite, she deserves to keep her guns.  The rest of us are too stupid and dangerous to be trusted with ours. 

[iCEBREAKER]

Fucking democrats... being protected by people with guns and OWNING them themselves but they go ahead and try to take the right away from their constituents from owning a gun / making it so hard they people give up.

Darling Hillary has had round the clock armed guards (Secret Service) at her disposal, paid for by the taxpayers, for the past 25 years.  This will continue for the rest of her life whether she is elected President or not.   Being an entitled elite, she deserves to keep her guns.  The rest of us are too stupid and dangerous to be trusted with ours. 

Killary's SS men hate her Bible-and-ashtray flinging guts.  One even wrote a book about it.

Imagine being an elite SS LEO, and having to not only watch but protect and thereby enable a giant crook like her.

I wouldn't be too shocked if a couple get fed up and give her the Indira Gandhi treatment....

[Wilikon]

Crowder Schools SkyNews on Guns

Published on Jun 23, 2016

Crowder debates SkyNews host on gun control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD_-JKvSJrc

 

[groll]

Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
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.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.

Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?

The best thing to do is not to ban firearms but include it in the curriculum. When we ban firearms people who do not have firearms cannot protect themselves against outlaws. IF gun handling is included in school curriculum there will be more disciplined gun users in the world. Responsible gun handling is the solution and not the banning of gun.

[Spendulus]

Fucking democrats... being protected by people with guns and OWNING them themselves but they go ahead and try to take the right away from their constituents from owning a gun / making it so hard they people give up.

Darling Hillary has had round the clock armed guards (Secret Service) at her disposal, paid for by the taxpayers, for the past 25 years.  This will continue for the rest of her life whether she is elected President or not.   Being an entitled elite, she deserves to keep her guns.  The rest of us are too stupid and dangerous to be trusted with ours. 

Killary's SS men hate her Bible-and-ashtray flinging guts.  One even wrote a book about it.

Imagine being an elite SS LEO, and having to not only watch but protect and thereby enable a giant crook like her.

I wouldn't be too shocked if a couple get fed up and give her the Indira Gandhi treatment....

I feel for those poor guys.

[BADecker]

Gun salesman-in-chief:
52,600 a day under Obama,
more seen under Hillary

Gun sales are on a pace to break last year's record of more than 23 million, a boon to the U.S. industry and gun stores thanks to election-year worries about gun control and recent terror attacks, according to government figures and experts.

Under Obama, background checks for guns reached 141.4 million through the end of May, amounting to sales of about 52,600 a day, according to the FBI. Last year, the FBI conducted more than 23 million background checks, which are generally used to figure sales of new and used weapons.

Domestically, manufacturers have reported producing about 21,000 guns a day, or more than 46 million in Obama's first six years in office.

Read more at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gun-salesman-in-chief-52600-a-day-under-obama-more-seen-under-hillary/article/2594961.

[abugseuf]

I am a European.  I cannot understand why Americans want to have so many people owning guns.

The biggest massacre involving guns happened in Europe. It occurred in a country, which is having one of the toughest gun control laws (Norway) in the world. A lunatic called Anders Behring Breivik was single-handedly able to mow down a total of 77 people, and the policemen present at the scene could not do anything, as they were not armed.

Ok the biggest might have been in Europe, but the frequency and total number killed is much higher in the US than all of Europe combined.

It wasn't that the police present couldn't do anything, he had set off a bomb in the capital city to throw the police off, then he attacked the children on an island that couldn't be quickly reached.
The guy was/is a lunatic and it is dreadful that he managed to get a weapon.  I would prefer that he wasn't able to get a gun, instead of giving lots of people guns to shoot each other in this kind of case (I doubt it would have made a difference as it was a Political Youth camp he attacked, probably not somewhere where people would be armed anyway)

this is what you are talking about the local weapon control. if we talk about the wold wise weapon control it mean the smuggling of weapon from one country to another country. so  can say that it is difficult to control weapon trafficking because some countries have a very large amount of income from weapons trade. for this purpose they are imposing war between and with in countries. there are so many countries whose geographic conditions compel them to buy weapons from the these countries.

[helloeverybody]

All you people who are against gun control seem to be under the impression that once you have gun control you have to give up your guns, Thats not the case. Gun control is simply putting in stricter checks or disallowing certain people for instance mentally insane or convicted criminals from having guns. Gun control is a must in any civilised country.

[BADecker]

Concealed Carry Saves Clerk from Ax-Wielding Attacker at 7-Eleven

Investigators said the shooting happened at the store in White Center at approximately 5:45 a.m. local time. Witnesses said the man entered the store and swung a hatchet toward the customer before turning his attention to the clerk.

As the assailant attacked, the customer pulled out a pistol and fired, hitting the suspect. The clerk suffered minor injuries to his stomach and the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.
The customer who shot the suspect is described as a 60-year-old Seattle man who visits the store every morning to get coffee. His name was not immediately released.

Authorities said the man who shot the attacker had a concealed carry permit and likely would not face charges as a result of his action.

Read more at http://wearechange.org/concealed-carry-saves-clerk/.

[helloeverybody]

Concealed Carry Saves Clerk from Ax-Wielding Attacker at 7-Eleven

Investigators said the shooting happened at the store in White Center at approximately 5:45 a.m. local time. Witnesses said the man entered the store and swung a hatchet toward the customer before turning his attention to the clerk.

As the assailant attacked, the customer pulled out a pistol and fired, hitting the suspect. The clerk suffered minor injuries to his stomach and the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.
The customer who shot the suspect is described as a 60-year-old Seattle man who visits the store every morning to get coffee. His name was not immediately released.

Authorities said the man who shot the attacker had a concealed carry permit and likely would not face charges as a result of his action.

Read more at http://wearechange.org/concealed-carry-saves-clerk/.

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

[BADecker]

Concealed Carry Saves Clerk from Ax-Wielding Attacker at 7-Eleven

Investigators said the shooting happened at the store in White Center at approximately 5:45 a.m. local time. Witnesses said the man entered the store and swung a hatchet toward the customer before turning his attention to the clerk.

As the assailant attacked, the customer pulled out a pistol and fired, hitting the suspect. The clerk suffered minor injuries to his stomach and the suspect was pronounced dead at the scene.
The customer who shot the suspect is described as a 60-year-old Seattle man who visits the store every morning to get coffee. His name was not immediately released.

Authorities said the man who shot the attacker had a concealed carry permit and likely would not face charges as a result of his action.

Read more at http://wearechange.org/concealed-carry-saves-clerk/.

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.   

[TheButterZone]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.    

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single millisecond of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

[BADecker]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.    

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single day of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

[TheButterZone]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.    

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single day of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

The jury can say "no guns ever" but unless they're willing to personally hold the perp at gunpoint in 6-12 member, 24/7/365 rotation for the rest of his life, they're not going to be able to stop him from having a gun outside a prison.

[BADecker]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.    

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single day of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

The jury can say "no guns ever" but unless they're willing to personally hold the perp at gunpoint in 6-12 member, 24/7/365 rotation for the rest of his life, they're not going to be able to stop him from having a gun outside a prison.

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been. Why would he be worse if he had lived? Besides, jury people aren't completely stupid. They would take into account the perp's history in their decision and judge accordingly.
2. The simple point of gun control is to take guns away. The extended point is to control the people. Already Chicago and New York are trying to control people based on what they think a person is going to do, that he might do a criminal act in the future. This is dangerous thinking on the part of officials. A person is innocent until he makes himself guilty. You and I just might be on a watch list, ready to lose our freedom for something we haven't done. Is that what you want?

If we all armed ourselves, we would have mutual respect for each other. Those of us who didn't have this respect would be dead like the hatchet-perp. But there would be far fewer perps, because they would know that every next guy just might fight back with the gun that he had, because everybody had guns. The perps would all be dead, or too afraid to be perps, and they just might change their lives around to be honest people, just so they could live.

[helloeverybody]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.    

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single day of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

The jury can say "no guns ever" but unless they're willing to personally hold the perp at gunpoint in 6-12 member, 24/7/365 rotation for the rest of his life, they're not going to be able to stop him from having a gun outside a prison.

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been. Why would he be worse if he had lived? Besides, jury people aren't completely stupid. They would take into account the perp's history in their decision and judge accordingly.
2. The simple point of gun control is to take guns away. The extended point is to control the people. Already Chicago and New York are trying to control people based on what they think a person is going to do, that he might do a criminal act in the future. This is dangerous thinking on the part of officials. A person is innocent until he makes himself guilty. You and I just might be on a watch list, ready to lose our freedom for something we haven't done. Is that what you want?

If we all armed ourselves, we would have mutual respect for each other. Those of us who didn't have this respect would be dead like the hatchet-perp. But there would be far fewer perps, because they would know that every next guy just might fight back with the gun that he had, because everybody had guns. The perps would all be dead, or too afraid to be perps, and they just might change their lives around to be honest people, just so they could live.

But with some simple gun control you could save countless lives by not allowing people who are likely to commit atrocities from legally obtaining firearms.   There will still be people  with gun,   just not those that are likely to use them to harm others.  The main reason criminals can get hold of guns so easily is because you have no licensin. 

[BADecker]

So with no gun control lets imagine the knife attacker survived this ordeal, Should he then be allowed to buy a gun and then more than likely do the same thing he did here except with a gun? Because thats what no gun control means. Again i dont think anybody (maybe some are ive not read every page) is saying your guns will be taken away completely, only that some form of control is put in place.

That's up to a jury, on a case by case determination.    

No, no, NO! No gun control MEANS NO CRIMINAL CONTROL! After the "knife attacker" was discharged from the hospital, he would not serve a single day of confinement, despite his attempted murder/"knife attack" being a crime worthy of life imprisonment!

If some guy hauls off and hits you, are you going to press charges? Or are you going to simply forgive him, especially if he knocks a tooth out, and you have to spend $1,500 to get it fixed? Let the guy go if you want. Don't press charges if you want.

An attack that doesn't do any damage is still a threat, and actual threats are punishable by law if the one who was threatened presses charges. Press charges with a jury trial, and let the jury make the law for the case in question. Essentially, the jury can do whatever it wants - no guns ever, prison term, fine, etc.

The jury can say "no guns ever" but unless they're willing to personally hold the perp at gunpoint in 6-12 member, 24/7/365 rotation for the rest of his life, they're not going to be able to stop him from having a gun outside a prison.

The flaw in your thinking is twofold at least:
1. The perp used a hatchet. This means he was not using a gun in the first place. So, he was not as bad of a crook as he could have been. Why would he be worse if he had lived? Besides, jury people aren't completely stupid. They would take into account the perp's history in their decision and judge accordingly.
2. The simple point of gun control is to take guns away. The extended point is to control the people. Already Chicago and New York are trying to control people based on what they think a person is going to do, that he might do a criminal act in the future. This is dangerous thinking on the part of officials. A person is innocent until he makes himself guilty. You and I just might be on a watch list, ready to lose our freedom for something we haven't done. Is that what you want?

If we all armed ourselves, we would have mutual respect for each other. Those of us who didn't have this respect would be dead like the hatchet-perp. But there would be far fewer perps, because they would know that every next guy just might fight back with the gun that he had, because everybody had guns. The perps would all be dead, or too afraid to be perps, and they just might change their lives around to be honest people, just so they could live.

But with some simple gun control you could save countless lives by not allowing people who are likely to commit atrocities from legally obtaining firearms.   There will still be people  with gun,   just not those that are likely to use them to harm others.  The main reason criminals can get hold of guns so easily is because you have no licensin. 

Isn't that exactly what the jury would be ordering in the case where it was necessary? Cops gun down more people than anybody else. Yet we don't take their property from them. Why take the property of anyone else?