Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 120. (Read 450482 times)

guns are made for only one purpose and that purpose is to kill either human or animal.if we want to make our world peaceful again we should ban guns.

Less weapons, better police and government 

(The US can spend a trillion per year to defend the worlds democracy and freedom. Some billions for a better police and judical system shouldnt be that hard no?)

Unfortunately, I'm hearing more frequently "an hour."

Who would you trust with a gun to protect you and your family forever?  Your government?  The police?  The military?

Police can't protect you.  When seconds count the police are only minutes away.  They will get there just in time to fill out the crime scene report.

Guns should be more readily available than they are, and be posessed by everyone. Why? The gun is the equalizer. A puny 100lb woman can protect herself from a burly 250lb man with a gun.

You want government to have the guns? Governments are people. Why would you trust them since it is they that are taking your property and rights away. Besides, since they are people, let all the people have guns, not just the government people.


But less problems than other nations would have if their populace had the same per capita number of guns.



It's a simple issue. Give all the people guns that want them, get rid of the cops, and you will have more peace than ever. Why? Because your average people fear guns. If guns were required, fear would turn into respect. Guns would almost never be needed or used if there was widespread gun ownership. And whatever usage there would be, would be fair and just.

It's a complicated issue. Guns probably shouldn't be as readily available as they are. We have major problems with gun violence that other developed nations don't have. But the NRA is absurdly powerful and lots of people feel incredibly strongly that guns should be allowed.It's a complicated issue. Guns probably shouldn't be as readily available as they are. We have major problems with gun violence that other developed nations don't have. But the NRA is absurdly powerful and lots of people feel incredibly strongly that guns should be allowed.

Busted: Katie Couric Gun Control Film Manipulated Audio to Discredit Second Amendment Defenders



Audio proof has emerged proving that pro-gun voices were edited — making respondents appear stumped or unsure — in Katie Couric’s gun control film, Under the Gun.

Breitbart News previously reported that Katie Couric omitted a four-hour interview that had been done with gun scholar John Lott Jr. The Guardian spoke with director Stephanie Soechtig regarding the decision to leave Lott out of the movie, and Soechtig said:

    [Lott’s] research has been criticized and largely discredited, and when we went to include it in the film, it felt like unnecessary real estate to put in the film, because we know his research has been debunked many times. We kept going back to the idea that we wanted to reserve the real estate in the film for the responsible gun owners.

Now, the Washington Free Beacon reports that Lott was by no means the only pro-gun person affected by the director’s cut, ostensibly for giving answers that did not jive with Couric and Soechtig’s predetermined goals.

The Beacon published audio in which Couric can be heard asking a group of pro-gun individuals how “terrorists or felons” can be prevented from buying guns if there are no background checks? The individuals can immediately be heard telling her there are already laws on the books “at the federal and state level” that prohibit felons and certain other criminals from buying guns. “These things are already illegal.”

Other voices can be heard defending citizens who have been accused but not convicted. One of the same voices emphasizes that background checks cannot catch latent criminals, only actual ones; that the government does not have the ability to predict who will be a felon and deny Second Amendment rights based on that prediction.

However, in the portion of the film in which Couric asks the question about background checks, the pro-gun responses were delayed, giving the impression that the pro-gun individuals were stumped or unsure. The Hollywood Reporter indicates the added delay lasts eight seconds. During the delay, a video loop plays, presenting the pro-gun individuals as silent, unable to answer Couric’s question on background checks.




http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/05/25/katie-couric-edited-pro-gun-voices-gun-control-film/

More important, evil should be banned forever.

Death should be banned forever.

Stupidity should be banned forever.

Lack of freedom should be banned forever.

Space travel should be refined and encouraged forever. One of the ways to do it is by building big guns in the ground, or up the sides of mountains, and shooting space capsules into space.

Guns, especially big ones, should be refined and encouraged forever.

Can you explain it more, please?
If you think that average people don't need guns, I can agree with you but if you think that nobody should have any weapons, police, army, hunters etc. I don't think it's realistic idea.
Also, in some countries like USA it's way of life, even protected by the constitution, that people can have guns so I don't think this can change so easy.
It's eternal question if the state can prohibit that people own a gun for self-defense, specially if they live in not secure areas.

But that would take people with guns to do the banning.

Guns should be banned forever. It should be implemented asap

My newest handgun: Nothing like a fine German weapon to defend my American freedom. 

Additionally, the codified legal process is punitive, not restorative. So if there are any fines to be levied, they go to the government, not the victim. Any profits earned from the labor of the prisoner go to private corporations, not the victims. What does the victim gain from the incarceration of the perpetrator other than the small piece of mind that they are not roaming the streets for an indefinite and short period of time?

It's worse than that. Here's why.

If a crook harms someone or damage his property, gun or no gun, basic law says that the crook should pay, one way or another. And the payment amount should be up to a jury or the injured party.

Much of the legal/political system has made the punishment for any crime to be way less than an amount that can sufficiently compensate the injured person.

It isn't gun control that the political system is after. It is people control they are after. And why? Same as any other corporation... profits.

The gun control that politicians talk about usually is nothing than grandstanding on their part and contributes nothing to a solution. The problem with any violent act is the violent person. Politicians do not know what to do with people. They attack where they give a perception of action and say "Look what I did". The next time something happens they will say they wanted to do more but were denied due to the other political side, lobbyist, etc. A million guns laid out on the street are as dangerous as a million bottles of whiskey or a million cars, a million knives, nooses or books. All can cause harm only when picked up and used recklessly or with malicious intent. Take every gun from society and bad people will still do bad things.

Consider yourself lucky.

...and more importantly, keep the United States of America free.  A proper government should should ALWAYS fear its people - not the other way around. 

So what country are you from? I am willing to bet it does not have anywhere near 300 million people from differing economic, social, religious, racial, and ideological backgrounds. I am also willing to bet the over all per-capita crime rate is similar to the USA if not worse.

Too bad. Gun freedom in America is helping to keep the world free.   

In my country you can't have a gun at home, or even if you can, it is really hard to get a licence or something. And there were no cases with kids using such weapon at school, or grown-ups at cinemas.