What's your opinion of gun control?

[automail]

In my opinion, the purpose of a gun was to kill or hurt someone. In Japan, gun was strictly banned and as a result their crime rate decreases. I am not saying that there is no criminal in that country but they were doing great in their fight against criminals. I'm not really a fan of guns. When a person is aggravated and he has a gone, most likely he will think about using it and that is were the problem is. The thought of using it can lead to something unavoidable, possibly murder. It is not right for civilians to have a gun, only the people with a badge has the right to have it and if possible, no one should ever had it. Peace.

[pogiparin]

gun control should be implemented so that the supply of guns will only be concentrated at those people who really need it. guns are harmful and should be handled with care

[braindeadgenius]

However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.

It is impossible to stop private sales.

You cannot and will not ever stop someone from obtaining a firearm if that is what they're after. Yes, the same age old adage that banning guns will work because banning drugs worked is true. The only thing you will ever do by limiting firearms to able-bodied people is prevent them from defending themselves.

[Bit Tuka]

In my opinion, it would be better if only the authorities have the access to guns or any other weapons that may harm others. In Japan, households do not have guns thus people don't have access to it so there is a lower rate of crime related to firearms. It is also easier to regulate it that way.

[September11]

I would be for a ban of guns worldwide, police and armies included. I mean, destroy every single existing gun on earth. From that day onwards we would have people fighting again with swords, which is more romantic.

[CryptoKyddie]

Good posts, one and all. Personally, any decent self respecting country should and must have gun control. In most countries individuals simply do not need any guns, unless they are farmers then a shotgun is sufficent. People in cities surely have no really need of hand guns and especially assault weapons. Unless its some horrible country where the rule of law is failing and the police are impotent.

Licensing is one thing, but even when licensed guns need to be locked away in a cabinet and with locks on the trigger and hopefully some lock or barrier on the end of the muzzle or barrel. Guns kills people. People use guns to kill. Killing is wrong

[FiveReelsTwo]

With the guns spread all over the globe.  I cannot imagine how a gunless society will start.  Someone has to own one. This is how some people few about guns since they have to protect themwselves from different kinds of threat.

[BADecker]

See? It's just like I have been saying now and again.

Get rid of the guns so that people don't hurt other people with guns.

Then, get rid of the swords so people don't hurt other people with swords.

Then get rid of the wooden tables and chairs so that people don't pull a leg off one of them and club other people.

Then take away everything that people might use to hurt other people.

And since people can use their bodies - like fists and feet - to hurt other people, do the following:

Develop AI robots to the point that they can do everything for people. Then, put all the people in strait-jackets, and let the robots take care of them. And never let the people ever come close to controlling any of the robots.

I mean, how stupid ^^^.

A 250 pound muscleman can easily overcome a 90 pound granny and kill her. But if Granny has a gun, she has a chance.

[zedrickjuls]

Myt  opinion is that gun is not create to kill people,It should only be a protection from your enemy.

[C10H15N]

My Alessi Bodyguard shoulder holster for my Walther PPK finally arrived.  Now I can conceal properly while wearing my Armani suits.  

[tvbcof]

My Alessi Bodyguard shoulder holster for my Walther PPK finally arrived.  Now I can conceal properly while wearing my Armani suits.  

[mg]http://oi36.tinypic.com/153tkz6.jpg[/img]

Image didn't load so I had to look it up on-line.  Looks nice!  I might have to have one, but I'm in the process of picking out a more ideal CC weapon at this point.

As for style, my tastes are different.  I've not fitted an easy-rider rifle rack to my pickup truck.  Nor have I removed the door in order to make the ideal top-of-the-line ride.  Here's my inspiration:



From:

http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_211057-Ford-F-3-1951.html

[Stegobit]

Anyone must have weapons not only to protect himself from criminals, but which is more importantly, protect himself and society he lives in from a tyrannical government.
Government have monopoly on violence only because people don't have weapons. Any monopoly leads to degradation!

[bernashka]

From the fact that the whole country is armed, there is less crime. According to statistics, just these children, who are going to defend, find this weapon, shoot at themselves, in their peers or even in their parents

[tvbcof]

Anyone must have weapons not only to protect himself from criminals, but which is more importantly, protect himself and society he lives in from a tyrannical government.
Government have monopoly on violence only because people don't have weapons. Any monopoly leads to degradation!

One of the internationally oriented definitions associated with 'failed state' is associated with the monopolization by the government of the use of force.  I'll comment on that.

It is very possible for a government to have a 'monopolization on the use of force' because the citizenry trusts them to use the use of force appropriately.  This is the ideal situation, and this is effectively what we have in the United States at this time.

It is a very different thing for a government to  have a 'monopolization on the use of force' because no matter what their actions and failures, the citizenry has no realistic  option but to rely on them.

I am very staunchly in support of ensuring that the government maintains their use-of-force monopoly by doing what the citizenry feels to be an adequate job, and has options should the government fail in their mandate.

[Murador0729]

Actually gun itself is not bad. The main purpose of this is to defened one's life. But there are so many people abuse the used of guns on their own intentions

[BADecker]

Actually gun itself is not bad. The main purpose of this is to defened one's life. But there are so many people abuse the used of guns on their own intentions

Imagine if cannibals had guns!   

[Stegobit]

It is very possible for a government to have a 'monopolization on the use of force' because the citizenry trusts them to use the use of force appropriately.  This is the ideal situation, and this is effectively what we have in the United States at this time.

US govt knows that many citizens have weapons, therefore imposing rampant tyranny is difficult there.

I am very staunchly in support of ensuring that the government maintains their use-of-force monopoly by doing what the citizenry feels to be an adequate job, and has options should the government fail in their mandate.

The world is not limited to US, Canada & Western Europe. Even in these high-developed countries governments have gained much more power during last decades and resistance grows (cryptocurrencies and TOR are good examples).

[Stegobit]

Imagine if cannibals had guns!   

These cannibals will be shot immediately!

[kinilawnabakulaw]

Guns should be regulated very well as they have the capability of harming others, especially when it is abused and not used as it is intended.

[shiki3226]

I personally believe that every country should have a more strict law governing the regulation of guns and firearms. I think that only those who are in need of it just like the police should have access to it.