What's your opinion of gun control?

[mostkey]

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.

Indeed your opinion is true, but do you know about the black market? There we can get many weapons of any model without a license, as long as we have a lot of money we can definitely get it,

Well there we can not have the authority or power to be able to stop the black market.

[matuson]

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.

Indeed your opinion is true, but do you know about the black market? There we can get many weapons of any model without a license, as long as we have a lot of money we can definitely get it,

Well there we can not have the authority or power to be able to stop the black market.

All people should have the right to arms because the criminals are assigned this right for themselves and no one is asking. Anyone who wants to restrict gun rights either themselves criminals and are afraid of armed resistance by the victim, or do not understand the subject.

[PeterTheGrape]

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.

Indeed your opinion is true, but do you know about the black market? There we can get many weapons of any model without a license, as long as we have a lot of money we can definitely get it,

Well there we can not have the authority or power to be able to stop the black market.

All people should have the right to arms because the criminals are assigned this right for themselves and no one is asking. Anyone who wants to restrict gun rights either themselves criminals and are afraid of armed resistance by the victim, or do not understand the subject.

Exactly true. Gun licenses should only be given to mentally ill people, since others, such as criminals don't need licenses.

Giving guns only to mentally ill people would reduce crime too, since a measured response to misbehavior could not be counted on.

If we give badges and uniforms to the crazies too then we can spot them before they attack us, which will increase public safety further.

[ethereumhunter]

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.

Indeed your opinion is true, but do you know about the black market? There we can get many weapons of any model without a license, as long as we have a lot of money we can definitely get it,

Well there we can not have the authority or power to be able to stop the black market.

All people should have the right to arms because the criminals are assigned this right for themselves and no one is asking. Anyone who wants to restrict gun rights either themselves criminals and are afraid of armed resistance by the victim, or do not understand the subject.

i think if someone wants to use a gun, he should have a license and he is register for his gun in the police database so if something bad happen with him and he doing a bad thing, the police can arrested that person. holding a gun in the neighborhood is a dangerous thing that we should thinking because in our environment, there are many children that will be victim if bad things is happen.

[livingfree]

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?

In my own opinion, I agree with the gun control because the leaders are able to regulate the usage of guns. A gun can kill a person in one snap. This will reduce incidents involving guns.

[Palmerson]

The gun can not only kill a person in one click, but just as a single click to stop the criminal and save someone's life. Why do you think that some clerk the right to decide I have the right to life or not. In many countries after the ban of weapons crime increased dramatically. You can on the numbers to prove that legal guns cause more harm than its absence.

[MCS23]

The gun can not only kill a person in one click, but just as a single click to stop the criminal and save someone's life. Why do you think that some clerk the right to decide I have the right to life or not. In many countries after the ban of weapons crime increased dramatically. You can on the numbers to prove that legal guns cause more harm than its absence.

Before thinking on this topic, you need to think and give yourself a question, restore this balance in society and whether it will be possible to legalize weapons, reduce the number of crimes related to the death of people. After all, the presence of weapons at home, entails consequences and often domestic violence.

[ecnalubma]

I dont want gun control but im in favor of total gun ban. Because in my country a lot killings occur day by day and guns are involved, many people innocent people lost their lives because of uncontrolably guns on the streets and the authorities are helpless.

[Okurkabinladin]

I dont want gun control but im in favor of total gun ban. Because in my country a lot killings occur day by day and guns are involved, many people innocent people lost their lives because of uncontrolably guns on the streets and the authorities are helpless.

Can you please elaborate on the issue? I am sure alot of us here would listen. What country and region are you from?

I am sure, that you understand, that firearms are ultimately - tools. Tools used by human beings. Neither wars nor violence were any less prevalent before gun powder, quite the opposite is true. Thats why tows around all of Euroasia had actual walls circling them off.

Now, please. Go on.

[CrownPolly]

I dont want gun control but im in favor of total gun ban. Because in my country a lot killings occur day by day and guns are involved, many people innocent people lost their lives because of uncontrolably guns on the streets and the authorities are helpless.

Can you please elaborate on the issue? I am sure alot of us here would listen. What country and region are you from?

I am sure, that you understand, that firearms are ultimately - tools. Tools used by human beings. Neither wars nor violence were any less prevalent before gun powder, quite the opposite is true. Thats why tows around all of Euroasia had actual walls circling them off.

Now, please. Go on.

I do not understand How does the way people kill a person affect the psyche of people? I still will shoot a person with a firearm or they will cut it with a knife, still the result will be the same. Therefore, if we talk about the legalization of firearms, we will need to talk about the legalization of cold weapons, as well as kitchen knives.

[Okurkabinladin]

I dont want gun control but im in favor of total gun ban. Because in my country a lot killings occur day by day and guns are involved, many people innocent people lost their lives because of uncontrolably guns on the streets and the authorities are helpless.

Can you please elaborate on the issue? I am sure alot of us here would listen. What country and region are you from?

I am sure, that you understand, that firearms are ultimately - tools. Tools used by human beings. Neither wars nor violence were any less prevalent before gun powder, quite the opposite is true. Thats why tows around all of Euroasia had actual walls circling them off.

Now, please. Go on.

I do not understand How does the way people kill a person affect the psyche of people? I still will shoot a person with a firearm or they will cut it with a knife, still the result will be the same. Therefore, if we talk about the legalization of firearms, we will need to talk about the legalization of cold weapons, as well as kitchen knives.

I am interested what the guy has to say, he may be from war torn region.

But you are right, that was my original point. Guns are tools, that are beside other things, good at killing humans and animals. If we ban them, then knives, axes, pickaxes, hammers, screwdrivers, cars, planes - all of those are just marginally worse tools at killing.

Pre-gunpowder world was actually full of constant warfare for the precise reason, that violence was not efficient. Developed countries never had less violence than they do today and our cities these days can exist without walls and guard towers.

[BADecker]

I dont want gun control but im in favor of total gun ban. Because in my country a lot killings occur day by day and guns are involved, many people innocent people lost their lives because of uncontrolably guns on the streets and the authorities are helpless.

Can you please elaborate on the issue? I am sure alot of us here would listen. What country and region are you from?

I am sure, that you understand, that firearms are ultimately - tools. Tools used by human beings. Neither wars nor violence were any less prevalent before gun powder, quite the opposite is true. Thats why tows around all of Euroasia had actual walls circling them off.

Now, please. Go on.

I do not understand How does the way people kill a person affect the psyche of people? I still will shoot a person with a firearm or they will cut it with a knife, still the result will be the same. Therefore, if we talk about the legalization of firearms, we will need to talk about the legalization of cold weapons, as well as kitchen knives.

I am interested what the guy has to say, he may be from war torn region.

But you are right, that was my original point. Guns are tools, that are beside other things, good at killing humans and animals. If we ban them, then knives, axes, pickaxes, hammers, screwdrivers, cars, planes - all of those are just marginally worse tools at killing.

Pre-gunpowder world was actually full of constant warfare for the precise reason, that violence was not efficient. Developed countries never had less violence than they do today and our cities these days can exist without walls and guard towers.

And most of world peace comes from the gun freedom in America and Switzerland. How does this work? Governments that would normally make slaves of their people are in a catch-22 situation.

First, the people of the world don't understand how their governments would make slaves of them. So, they think that they don't need guns.

Governments of the world can't enact slavery, because their people would get arms and ammo from America and Switzerland. If governments made a show of slavery, their sleeping people would wake up to how powerful gun freedom is.

This is happening in the Middle East, Africa, and areas of Pakistan right now. ISIS and others are trying to take away freedom from people. America is fighting to stop it, and to uphold freedom.

[Heyyyrenz]

i think it will hard for the people to have gun control sometimes they bought it for self defense but some used it for killing or doing bad things i think they should sell guns to only authorize people the people who can really be responsible on using this. example business man and others and i think before buying a gun they have atleast a orientation about this or psychological orientation in order to buy guns they must have to show a proof.

[BADecker]

Congressman Details Hectic Moment Under Fire: 'We Were Sitting Ducks; Gun Saved Our Lives'

A Michigan representative who survived a gun attack during a congressional baseball practice Wednesday morning in Virginia is detailing the harrowing moments the gunman opened fire.

Michigan Rep. Mike Bishop tells WWJ Newsradio 950 he was attending the practice around 5:30 a.m., in Alexandria, when shots rang out. He said he and his colleagues were "sitting ducks."

"As we were standing here this morning, a gunman walked up to the fence line and just began to shoot. I was standing at home plate and he was in the third base line," Bishop said. "He had a rifle that was clearly meant for the job of taking people out, multiple casualties, and he had several rounds and magazines that he kept unloading and reloading."

The shooting went on for roughly 10 minutes, with some accounts putting the number of shots fired around 100. Five people were injured, including two Capitol Hill police officers and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, of Louisiana. The suspect was also shot.

"The only reason why any of us walked out of this thing, by the grace of God, one of the folks here had a weapon to fire back and give us a moment to find cover. We were inside the backstop and if we didn't have that cover by a brave person who stood up and took a shot themselves, we would not have gotten out of there and every one of us would have been hit — every single one of us," said Bishop. "He was coming around the fence line and he was looking for all of us who had found cover in different spots. But if we didn't have return fire right there, he would have come up to each one of us and shot us point-blank."

Read more and listen to the radio broadcast at http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2017/06/14/michigan-representative-ok-as-shots-fired-at-members-of-congress/.

[Okurkabinladin]

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which concerns the right to bear arms, is always a hot-button issue, especially during election season.

Gun rights and gun control groups alike have been lobbying Congress for decades to craft legislation in their respective favors. Twice in the past two years the gun issue has reached the nation’s highest court.

In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun for personal use. But the 5-4 decision only applied to federal laws and failed to address local and state laws. Thus, in July 2010 the Supreme Court ruled that the federal right to bear arms also applies at the state and local level. The ruling lifted a nearly 30-year-old Chicago gun ban. The National Rifle Association called the ruling a landmark, but the decision did not specify what kind of gun laws can be applied to the Second Amendment. “The real challenge is going to be getting law-abiding citizens access to it,” said NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre after the ruling. Both gun rights and gun control groups will likely continue to lobby Congress on this issue to either blunt or sharpen the ruling.

[sindikat]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

[Okurkabinladin]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

You are perfectly correct.

Also in United States only some responsibility is held by federal government, alot of laws are therefore set down by local politicians within states. It is far more just, than collective rule of single group of people over the entire nations.

If democrats in California hate guns, cars and electricity - they can ban it all, but only for themselves. Others might not have such problems and keep them.

[Love!]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.

People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.

A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?

They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.

If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.

The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.

[Okurkabinladin]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.

People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.

A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?

They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.

If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.

The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.

You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend.

Mutually assured destruction.

Indeed assasin (who will get his weapon regardless of laws) might still act, but common folk? No.

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon

[Lancusters]

I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?

You are perfectly correct.

Also in United States only some responsibility is held by federal government, alot of laws are therefore set down by local politicians within states. It is far more just, than collective rule of single group of people over the entire nations.

If democrats in California hate guns, cars and electricity - they can ban it all, but only for themselves. Others might not have such problems and keep them.

Those who propose to tighten the rules for the use of guns in America will never lead the statistics in confirmation of his words. They take for example some mass shooting and trying to pass it off as a pattern. No one ever says how many people the weapon has saved lives.