What's your opinion of gun control?

[warrior333]

In my opinion, they should do tests before giving someone weapon license. Because there is a case like Eliot Rodger's one, I mean how can you let a mentally disturbed guy own a gun?

They went a step beyond that in Arizona and some other States. In AZ you don't even have to have a license for concealed carry.

With this approach to gun crime there is 22% less than in the States where it is forbidden to carry weapons.There are cities of Chicago, new York, Washington, Detroit, Washington where the weapon cannot have both. These cities are home to only 6 % of the population. And committed 20 % of all us murders!

[Hazir]

See what is happening in Europe right now, terrorists don't need to use guns to kill people. They will just use cars/trucks and then slaughter bystanders with long knives.
It is really sad and bit of funny that we have policemen armed only with nightsticks to battle them.
So here is my short conclusion: If terrorists knew that society is armed with guns they wouldn't be so eager to strike.

[Lampaster]

Should be able to keep a small gun for safety reasons, but I think the owner should get checked up on his psychological history etc before allowing him to get one.

And what will happen if the owner of the weapon will get mental disorder after receiving a license for the right to keep and bear arms? Is the same and so. It is impossible to prevent everything, but if guns save lives then it should be.

[VadikZimnyayaRezina]

Should be able to keep a small gun for safety reasons, but I think the owner should get checked up on his psychological history etc before allowing him to get one.

And what will happen if the owner of the weapon will get mental disorder after receiving a license for the right to keep and bear arms? Is the same and so. It is impossible to prevent everything, but if guns save lives then it should be.

So you need to go to the doctor every six months and confirm that the weapon holder has not lost his mind during this time. But this is too complicated and does not give any guarantees. The right to own weapons is a very complex issue

[sindikat]

In the USA in the State of Florida there was a firing, is reported about "the numerous victims". Reports office of the sheriff of the city of Orlando about it.
"The staff of office of the sheriff works at the scene, the situation is taken under control. There are numerous victims. The sheriff will give additional information as soon as possible" — it is said in the message of police on Twitter.
According to CNN, firing has happened in one of industrial zones in the suburbs. Around firing several streets are blocked, the police has gathered on the parking near the warehouses located near the place of an incident.

[Xester]

Should be able to keep a small gun for safety reasons, but I think the owner should get checked up on his psychological history etc before allowing him to get one.

And what will happen if the owner of the weapon will get mental disorder after receiving a license for the right to keep and bear arms? Is the same and so. It is impossible to prevent everything, but if guns save lives then it should be.

So you need to go to the doctor every six months and confirm that the weapon holder has not lost his mind during this time. But this is too complicated and does not give any guarantees. The right to own weapons is a very complex issue

The right to own should be complex to avoid any incident like shooting incident on cinemas, malls, schools, and recently casinos.  It is okay to put all the aspirant to have guns to be checked regularly but maybe not every 6 months.  Every year or every renewal of right to own is okay and the person should undergo the psycho test.  But as you said it will not still guarantees that the holder will not do any illegal matters.  

[Proton2233]

Today in the Australian Melbourne explosion and fire in one of the houses. Police found in the foyer of a housing complex shot and killed a man. Then the shooting happened. The gunman wounded two police officers, took a hostage and barricaded in one of apartments. And this despite the fact that in Australia it is forbidden to have weapons. If they lived in America they would have a chance to survive.

[tvbcof]

Should be able to keep a small gun for safety reasons, but I think the owner should get checked up on his psychological history etc before allowing him to get one.

And what will happen if the owner of the weapon will get mental disorder after receiving a license for the right to keep and bear arms? Is the same and so. It is impossible to prevent everything, but if guns save lives then it should be.

So you need to go to the doctor every six months and confirm that the weapon holder has not lost his mind during this time. But this is too complicated and does not give any guarantees. The right to own weapons is a very complex issue

The right to own should be complex to avoid any incident like shooting incident on cinemas, malls, schools, and recently casinos.  It is okay to put all the aspirant to have guns to be checked regularly but maybe not every 6 months.  Every year or every renewal of right to own is okay and the person should undergo the psycho test.  But as you said it will not still guarantees that the holder will not do any illegal matters.  

Let's see.  Say 10% of the population owns a gun.  Rounding down, say, 30,000,000 people.  A 'check' is going to require several people and at least one with some law enforcement experience for safety reasons.  Let's say they average 1 check per hour (which seems highly optimistic to me in noting how government employees and their contractors tend to work.)  That's 8 checks per day.  The back of my envelope reads a cost of about $6,000,000,000.  Six Billion dollars per year.

This doesn't include the 'psycho tests'.  It also doesn't include medical care for people who get their asses shot off by either showing up at someones door demanding to inventory their guns, or the people who get their asses shot off by the swat team because they shot the bureaucrats ass off in the first place.

[bittmattic]

I'm all for protecting myself with guns against other people who might use guns against me

[hovrah]

Should be able to keep a small gun for safety reasons, but I think the owner should get checked up on his psychological history etc before allowing him to get one.

And what will happen if the owner of the weapon will get mental disorder after receiving a license for the right to keep and bear arms? Is the same and so. It is impossible to prevent everything, but if guns save lives then it should be.

So you need to go to the doctor every six months and confirm that the weapon holder has not lost his mind during this time. But this is too complicated and does not give any guarantees. The right to own weapons is a very complex issue

The right to own should be complex to avoid any incident like shooting incident on cinemas, malls, schools, and recently casinos.  It is okay to put all the aspirant to have guns to be checked regularly but maybe not every 6 months.  Every year or every renewal of right to own is okay and the person should undergo the psycho test.  But as you said it will not still guarantees that the holder will not do any illegal matters.  

Let's see.  Say 10% of the population owns a gun.  Rounding down, say, 30,000,000 people.  A 'check' is going to require several people and at least one with some law enforcement experience for safety reasons.  Let's say they average 1 check per hour (which seems highly optimistic to me in noting how government employees and their contractors tend to work.)  That's 8 checks per day.  The back of my envelope reads a cost of about $6,000,000,000.  Six Billion dollars per year.

This doesn't include the 'psycho tests'.  It also doesn't include medical care for people who get their asses shot off by either showing up at someones door demanding to inventory their guns, or the people who get their asses shot off by the swat team because they shot the bureaucrats ass off in the first place.

And in my country there is already talk about not only storing but also carrying a firearm with a comma, but only to all law enforcement officers and even former employees. But not one Civil this right will not have.

[Gelap]

In my opinion.
Gun control is very good.
If it is not in control then every day there will be people dead due to guns.

[Lieldoryn]

In my opinion.
Gun control is very good.
If it is not in control then every day there will be people dead due to guns.

Tightening or liberalization of the rules for obtaining a license for weapons is only for politicians. It is not possible to speak about the economy, they affect the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The weapon is an integral part of American society and never allow politicians to take it from the population.

[Okurkabinladin]

In my opinion.
Gun control is very good.
If it is not in control then every day there will be people dead due to guns.

Tightening or liberalization of the rules for obtaining a license for weapons is only for politicians. It is not possible to speak about the economy, they affect the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The weapon is an integral part of American society and never allow politicians to take it from the population.

I hope, that you are right, but never take your privileges for granted. Much of Europe used to be the same way, individual rights stripped away piece by piece by socialists.

Do you know, you would get arrested for pocket knife in Germany? Germany...

Trust me, liberal leftists are no better in America, than they are in Europe. They have the same aims.

I'm all for protecting myself with guns against other people who might use guns against me

I agree, but its not just that.

"God made man but samuel colt made them equal."

Simple pistol can erase any advantage, that 300 pound attacker would have over 100 pound woman.

[SingAlong]

In my opinion.
Gun control is very good.
If it is not in control then every day there will be people dead due to guns.

Tightening or liberalization of the rules for obtaining a license for weapons is only for politicians. It is not possible to speak about the economy, they affect the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The weapon is an integral part of American society and never allow politicians to take it from the population.

I hope, that you are right, but never take your privileges for granted. Much of Europe used to be the same way, individual rights stripped away piece by piece by socialists.

Do you know, you would get arrested for pocket knife in Germany? Germany...

Trust me, liberal leftists are no better in America, than they are in Europe. They have the same aims.

I'm all for protecting myself with guns against other people who might use guns against me

I agree, but its not just that.

"God made man but samuel colt made them equal."

Simple pistol can erase any advantage, that 300 pound attacker would have over 100 pound woman.

I strongly believe that every man has a right to protect themselves against to people who poses danger to them. Though I am in favor with gun control since the government should be serious about who should own a gun and those should not. But when you say banning guns then that would not be right since those people who received it (legally) undergo with the proper ways and needed skills with physical and mentally able.

But I believe that those who really want guns especially those who have a bad intention can acquire it without the approval of the government by hook or by crook. The issue really is to trace the origin of this unlicensed guns and put to justice those guys who have been selling it illegally.

[Okurkabinladin]

I strongly believe that every man has a right to protect themselves against to people who poses danger to them. Though I am in favor with gun control since the government should be serious about who should own a gun and those should not. But when you say banning guns then that would not be right since those people who received it (legally) undergo with the proper ways and needed skills with physical and mentally able.

But I believe that those who really want guns especially those who have a bad intention can acquire it without the approval of the government by hook or by crook. The issue really is to trace the origin of this unlicensed guns and put to justice those guys who have been selling it illegally.

Yes, you dont have to be a christian to inherently understand, that every organism by its nature will try to protect its life against agressor. The thing particular to guns (and why they are such big point of contention) is the fact, that they multiply force an individual is able to extert. Single woman can defend her family against gang of five, thats not possible with any other tool.

Guns can be made with equipment in garage, they are not Happy Potter sticks, but merely several pieces of metal setting off chemical reaction when fired. So you are right, they will continue to be made and their ban will merely exlude law abidding citizens from using them. Not terrorists or criminals.

Government regulation is indeed in place - nobody really needs immigrants, who just entered country or ex-criminals, who just left jail after previous violent behavior to be able to buy semiautomatic rifles.

Thats why I said to the guy before you: Being able to defend yourself is privilege, cherish it and protect. Others around the world were not so lucky, some (Swedish, Germans) even brainwashed into thinking, that its in their best interest to be completely at mercy of state and sociopaths at all times.

[TomUyamot]

I don't think civilians need guns, neither outside nor in their homes. Guns are only for those who have the permit, the license, the necessary training to handle them, the emotionally-fit, and so on. In other words, guns are only for those law enforcers.

Why should people other than them want to have one?    To protect themselves against possible intrusion and the like? For personal protection? To keep their properties safe? You name it. The list goes on and on. Everyone can cite such reasons. And before you know it, everyone is keeping one, and tadaan! shooting news are everywhere.

Keep the guns away from the hands of people and there would be less violence. 

[Okurkabinladin]

I don't think civilians need guns, neither outside nor in their homes. Guns are only for those who have the permit, the license, the necessary training to handle them, the emotionally-fit, and so on. In other words, guns are only for those law enforcers.

Why should people other than them want to have one?    To protect themselves against possible intrusion and the like? For personal protection? To keep their properties safe? You name it. The list goes on and on. Everyone can cite such reasons. And before you know it, everyone is keeping one, and tadaan! shooting news are everywhere.

Keep the guns away from the hands of people and there would be less violence. 

May I know how old are you?

Learn how the world looked like before gunpowder was around, since you are of notion, that indidual human beings cant make decisions for themselves. Thos "law enforcers" are born as civilians too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycEZIbQqA8A

The war, an actual war would be more present - as is terrorism more present in Europe today, when in countries such as United Kingdom not even cops are issued with firearms.

[BADecker]

Watch: This Thug Tries To Rob A Store Where Every Customer Is Armed

They fear that it would make firearm accidents more likely, and in the event that a robber or a mass shooter is on the loose, there would be a chaotic hail of gunfire from all directions.

It's a silly argument to make, considering that even in states where there are loose gun laws, and where it is easy to obtain a concealed carry permit, only a minority of citizens carry guns at all times. But for the sake of argument, what would happen if everyone was armed in the vicinity of a violent criminal?

Perhaps this footage of a liquor store robbery in Brazil can answer that question. It shows what happens when a robber tries to hold up a store where every customer is packing heat.

The footage, which was originally posted on Liveleak, is dated May 31st, 2017. The gunman enters the store with a motorcycle helmet to conceal his face, but appears to drop his weapon after he walks past one of the customers. Then he is shot after every customer draws a gun on him.

LiveLeak - Thief robs place where everyone was armed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzcJbUqFz90


Read more at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/watch-this-thug-tries-to-rob-a-store-where-every-customer-is-armed_06052017.

[BADecker]

Despite All Expectations, Gun Sales Reached a Record High in May

His administration stoked plenty of fears that gun rights would be restricted, which resulted in shortages of firearms and ammunition, and drove record gun sales. During the second half of his administration, it seemed like gun sales were at times, breaking records every few months.

So when Trump was elected, most people assumed that gun sales were finally going to slow down, myself included. Last March I wrote:

But with a Republican in the Oval Office, it appears that gun sales are finally going to slow down for the first time since the early 2000's. Despite the fact that there aren't any recent statistics to back this up, we can safely assume that it's true based on a recent action taken by Remington.

The gun manufacturing company revealed last week that they are going to lay off 120 workers from their Ilion plant, and 16 workers from their plant in Kentucky. According to Zerohedge and the Wall Street Journal, Remington isn't alone. American Outdoor Brands, which used to be known as Smith & Wesson, is also losing sales. And this is a very recent trend. A month ago, the number of firearm background checks was still breaking records.

Read more and click the links at http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/despite-all-expectations-gun-sales-reached-a-record-high-in-may_06052017.

[Symphony_fr]

I believe that weapons can only be given to mentally healthy people to protect themselves and their families. Only here to check this health is not always possible by judging by the number of committed crimes.