What's your opinion of gun control?

[BADecker]

Crooks don't respect people who don't have guns. They get guns and use them. That's why everybody needs to have their own gun... to protect themselves from crooks.

[1714825947]

1714825947

[tvbcof]

...
And there's many more when you look for them. Get rid of the crooks... like the Democrats that want to disarm us so they can break into our house and rob us without fear.

That's called 'transfer of wealth' from the haves to the have-nots.

When someone breaks into a woman's house just to rape her, it's OK because he was just having a 'sexual emergency.'

The more people die the fewer people will be hurting 'mother Gaia'.  So the orgy of killing which would happen when all non-criminals are disarmed would be a good thing to these creeps.

It's painful for me to admit that I used to prefer to vote Democrat.  I got smart and don't even vote at all in our so-called 'democracy.'  It's a sick joke.  (Ya, I did vote for Trump although I had a pretty strong suspicion that he was just another fraud.  Oh well.)

[wolf_norris]

The U.S. has plenty of gun control and these problems are at a tolerable level and most of them dropping.  Those which are not dropping will only get worse as citizens are dis-armed.

What is a tolerable level of gun crime, accidental gun deaths, gun suicides, and police shootings? That seems like a ridiculous statement. How much gun violence is okay in your mind? Is it tolerable until your kid accidentally shoots your wife? Is it tolerable until the cops start shooting at you? Where can you draw the line? I don't think any of those statistics should be tolerable. Everything should be done to get them as close to 0 as possible.

[BADecker]

The U.S. has plenty of gun control and these problems are at a tolerable level and most of them dropping.  Those which are not dropping will only get worse as citizens are dis-armed.

What is a tolerable level of gun crime, accidental gun deaths, gun suicides, and police shootings? That seems like a ridiculous statement. How much gun violence is okay in your mind? Is it tolerable until your kid accidentally shoots your wife? Is it tolerable until the cops start shooting at you? Where can you draw the line? I don't think any of those statistics should be tolerable. Everything should be done to get them as close to 0 as possible.

All your questions are things that gun control by government promotes. The difference is that government controls it all rather than everyday people controlling.

If you want to live free, you have to stand up and take responsibility for how you live. You control your guns with your kids all the time. You train your kids how to be responsible for their actions. You don't leave your guns lying around so your kids can get them without proper overseeing.

Gun control by government is simply all the crimes being done by government because government has the strength if they have the gun control.

[BADecker]

Is this what you want? This is what gun control is all about. This is what gun control does.


Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0

[rutherford]

Gun control is really needed, especially after that incident. It shows that even if someone already got permit for possession of guns, that doesn't mean the person will not misuse the gun. Because we never know when the mental strikes the mind. It could cause madness and someone could loose their mind and act violent. I think the permit should be extend every 6 months with many test and procedure which can help to minimize the bad things that could happen.

[tvbcof]

The U.S. has plenty of gun control and these problems are at a tolerable level and most of them dropping.  Those which are not dropping will only get worse as citizens are dis-armed.

What is a tolerable level of gun crime, accidental gun deaths, gun suicides, and police shootings? That seems like a ridiculous statement. How much gun violence is okay in your mind? Is it tolerable until your kid accidentally shoots your wife? Is it tolerable until the cops start shooting at you? Where can you draw the line? I don't think any of those statistics should be tolerable. Everything should be done to get them as close to 0 as possible.

I personally know of no-one who has accidentally shot their wife or husband.  I do know of situations where a person has accidentally hit their wife on the head with a sledge hammer driving fence posts.  Fortunately it did not severely injure her.  I know of a situation where a person ran over his wife while trying to jump-start an automobile.  Unfortunately this did result in a fatality.

Being alive and actually doing things in the real world is a risky thing (but some weirdos actually enjoy it...go figure.)  Sitting on the couch an watching TV all day helps...until you reach about age 50 then it still helps, but mostly it helps the medical/industrial complex.

A skilled engineer will almost never try to get to 'zero.'  We know the trade-offs which occur most of the time, and we balance these in a coherent manner.  A starry-eyed utopian dreamer will always shoot for zero.  More commonly so will a brainwashed retard who listens to their bullshit.  Or more often they are listen to a cold and calculating engineer who is spinning yards of utopian bullshit for the masses but who has an entirely different agenda in mind.

[Andrej Peiboski]

The problem is not the guns, but those who hold them in their hands: with cars you can create dead and wounded, but this is not a good reason to prohibit cars.
With the guns, it's the same: if you give the right people, they do not create any problems.

[kolsernik]

Why do ordinary people need weapons? I believe that weapons can only be worn by a policeman or a military. If you want to shoot, you can go to the shooting gallery. Less weapons, fewer problems

[HI KITTY]

IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.

people must know the laws and policies regarding gun control. If ever they want to own a fire arm or not the must the regulations and responsibility,
Most countries have a restrictive firearm guiding policy, with only a few legislation being categorized as permissive.

[wolf_norris]

The U.S. has plenty of gun control and these problems are at a tolerable level and most of them dropping.  Those which are not dropping will only get worse as citizens are dis-armed.

What is a tolerable level of gun crime, accidental gun deaths, gun suicides, and police shootings? That seems like a ridiculous statement. How much gun violence is okay in your mind? Is it tolerable until your kid accidentally shoots your wife? Is it tolerable until the cops start shooting at you? Where can you draw the line? I don't think any of those statistics should be tolerable. Everything should be done to get them as close to 0 as possible.

All your questions are things that gun control by government promotes. The difference is that government controls it all rather than everyday people controlling.

If you want to live free, you have to stand up and take responsibility for how you live. You control your guns with your kids all the time. You train your kids how to be responsible for their actions. You don't leave your guns lying around so your kids can get them without proper overseeing.

Gun control by government is simply all the crimes being done by government because government has the strength if they have the gun control.

Well, I don't see how you can control whether the cops shoot you or not. Cops shooting innocent people is a part of the gun culture. Any slight movement can be interpreted as somebody going for a gun. How about just gun violence in general? You think that it's okay if people just rob you at gun point a little bit? So that it's tolerable?

I personally know of no-one who has accidentally shot their wife or husband.  I do know of situations where a person has accidentally hit their wife on the head with a sledge hammer driving fence posts.  Fortunately it did not severely injure her.  I know of a situation where a person ran over his wife while trying to jump-start an automobile.  Unfortunately this did result in a fatality.

Being alive and actually doing things in the real world is a risky thing (but some weirdos actually enjoy it...go figure.)  Sitting on the couch an watching TV all day helps...until you reach about age 50 then it still helps, but mostly it helps the medical/industrial complex.

A skilled engineer will almost never try to get to 'zero.'  We know the trade-offs which occur most of the time, and we balance these in a coherent manner.  A starry-eyed utopian dreamer will always shoot for zero.  More commonly so will a brainwashed retard who listens to their bullshit.  Or more often they are listen to a cold and calculating engineer who is spinning yards of utopian bullshit for the masses but who has an entirely different agenda in mind.

I guess to some extent your answer goes right along with what I'm saying. Do people accidentally shoot themselves or their loved ones? Absolutely, and this obviously happens more where there are more guns. You don't know anybody that this has happened to and, therefore, it's tolerable to you. I think it would be a different conversation if you were one of the "tolerable" statistics.

I agree that life is risky, of course. I realize that we will never get to "zero", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for it. You think it's better to aim for 1 murder per year? Per day? Maybe 10 murders a month? Is that a good goal? Of course you want to stop all of them, even if you know you won't be able to.

[tvbcof]

I agree that life is risky, of course. I realize that we will never get to "zero", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for it. You think it's better to aim for 1 murder per year? Per day? Maybe 10 murders a month? Is that a good goal? Of course you want to stop all of them, even if you know you won't be able to.

It absolutely DOES mean that 'we' would NOT 'aim for it.'  It will be hugely expensive in a number of ways to try to grab all guns and has zero chance of being effective anyway.  The only thing which it will accomplish in the U.S. is that the ratio of armed responsible citizens to armed criminals will be vastly less, and there will be a blood bath.  Most of the blood will be that of the responsible civilians since criminals will switch from non-confrontational crime to confrontational crime when they can do so safely.

Currently criminals cannot rely on confrontational crime in rural areas with very low police protection, and there is limited such protection because it is simply not economically feasible to employ a large police force in such areas.  The guiding hands funding/motivating the 'gun grabbers' are fully aware of these dynamics, but they also tend to believe that citizens should be aggregated into dense population centers where they can be more easily monitored and the rural areas should be minimally inhabited (mostly by their own staff engaged in resource extraction.)  Rampant crime will provide another justification for population movements.

[mcqueen95]

Personally, I do not believe that outlawing guns is the path to stopping these shootings. If anything, outlawing guns will just make the common people more defenseless. Although violence is not the answer, sometimes you have to defend yourself or defend the people you care about, and in some cases, the only answer is violence. it may not be the right answer, but it can be the answer that gives you the result to desire. if you believe in nonviolence, then fine, do not take the path of violence. Do not defend yourself when someone points a gun at you. but if you are selfish, as I am, if you have the will to live, and the conviction to defend yourself, then would you rather not have a gun in hand to protect yourself?

[tvbcof]

It's a difficult topic. We can't completely ban weapons because those who manage to find it will be 10 times deadlier. However I think that we can find ways to protect ourselves from it, currently there are not enough "defense options".

You'll be offered a '100% reliable option', and it will work.  Or at least has the theoretical potential to work from a technological perspective and thus will be believable to most people.

My opinion is that 'gun control' is not really a very important thing in today's world.  It is, however, critical for what happens 'the day after tomorrow' so to speak.  That would help explain why 'all the fuss' about it in the here-and-now is so confusing to people.

[wolf_norris]

I agree that life is risky, of course. I realize that we will never get to "zero", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't aim for it. You think it's better to aim for 1 murder per year? Per day? Maybe 10 murders a month? Is that a good goal? Of course you want to stop all of them, even if you know you won't be able to.

It absolutely DOES mean that 'we' would NOT 'aim for it.'  It will be hugely expensive in a number of ways to try to grab all guns and has zero chance of being effective anyway.  The only thing which it will accomplish in the U.S. is that the ratio of armed responsible citizens to armed criminals will be vastly less, and there will be a blood bath.  Most of the blood will be that of the responsible civilians since criminals will switch from non-confrontational crime to confrontational crime when they can do so safely.

Currently criminals cannot rely on confrontational crime in rural areas with very low police protection, and there is limited such protection because it is simply not economically feasible to employ a large police force in such areas.  The guiding hands funding/motivating the 'gun grabbers' are fully aware of these dynamics, but they also tend to believe that citizens should be aggregated into dense population centers where they can be more easily monitored and the rural areas should be minimally inhabited (mostly by their own staff engaged in resource extraction.)  Rampant crime will provide another justification for population movements.

You still don't really answer the question. You don't think it would be good to have zero gun violence. I understand that it is pretty much an impossible number to attain. What do you think is a good goal then? How would you put it? You seriously think that criminals don't commit crimes because they know that other people have guns? Why don't criminals with guns commit many crimes in Canada, for example, when they know that people almost definitely won't have guns? Do you have an explanation for that?

[Jemroe01]

Currently, we lived in a world where a war is seen as normal, where people lived beyond crucial, where we humans are capable of satisfying our own above what is essential.
See a child already holding a gun weapon, does he commanded the thought of killing?
Look at those young individuals, do they know having that gun isn't an expertise of them?
Head over the news of some police officers whom people thought of protection but instead is a big opposite, does it really an alarming sign?
Gun control should be an everyone's awareness of being one of those concerned in right and just actions towards peace.

[BADecker]

When is gun control, fun control? When you are the controller. Just ask the governments of the countries that have complete gun control, as the government officials roll in wealth they can take from the people any time they want... because they have the guns.

[Hjalmond]

In our history always masters have guns slaves not.
Its funny to hear shooting in school we need abolish guns. But lets be honest shooting in school always happend because school is no gun zone xD
This cases are ammunition for anti gun propaganda always is easier to control the disarmerd society

[crwth]

When is gun control, fun control? When you are the controller. Just ask the governments of the countries that have complete gun control, as the government officials roll in wealth they can take from the people any time they want... because they have the guns.

Gun control is an absolute must. The more people who have it, the more it is dangerous. Although a gun is used for protection but only for that purpose. Extreme measures for securing a gun should be taken into action, plus certificates and IDs for verification. With gun control, violence is decreased since authorities will easily be able to narrow down the search for those who used their guns for these.

[BADecker]

When is gun control, fun control? When you are the controller. Just ask the governments of the countries that have complete gun control, as the government officials roll in wealth they can take from the people any time they want... because they have the guns.

Gun control is an absolute must. The more people who have it, the more it is dangerous. Although a gun is used for protection but only for that purpose. Extreme measures for securing a gun should be taken into action, plus certificates and IDs for verification. With gun control, violence is decreased since authorities will easily be able to narrow down the search for those who used their guns for these.

Of course gun control is an absolute must. And it should be people controlling the guns, not gorillas, or chimps, or zebras. And it shouldn't be those gun crazy cops, or military people who go around and kill people in Afghanistan and Yemen. Rather, it should be all the average people controlling their own guns, and deciding locally how much gun control there should be.