Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 126. (Read 450482 times)

I believe that gun control will not work.

First, I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it. Guns themselves can't do anything it is the person with the gun that decides where the bullet goes.

Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people will not make them less violent. It might make them more violent. Violent people can use anything to be violent. Taking guns away from violent people is no more than just taking one out of a thousand more ways to hurt, rob, or kill you.

Also, gun control will not work because we already had something like it a few times and each time it has failed. Remember the Prohibition? From 1919 till 1933 owning, producing, and selling alcohol was illegal. Some people believed that alcohol was a bad thing and that it caused people to do terrible things. To these people it seemed like a good idea at the time to make alcohol illegal.

However, outlaws and gang members decided to keep making alcohol anyway. It was obvious that the Prohibition had failed. The latest ban that is having problems is the illegal drug bans.

Now many of us know that most drugs that are illegal are bad to people’s health when used. However, when drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, and meth became illegal outlaws and gangs saw a new business and started a war with many governments especially America. Outlaws produced and sold drug illegally to the public. Even today outlaws keep making them, selling them, using them, and innocent people are still getting killed over them.

Outlaws will still find ways to smuggle, produce, and use guns to their advantage. The only thing that gun control will do is make it harder for law obeying citizens to get guns. This is one important thing to remember. Once something is outlawed only outlaws get it.

That is why gun control will not work.

None of your argument changes the fact that banning something is not effective in eliminating it. All that happens is a black market is created and the contraband still flows.

As far as your second "point", I am sure that the fact that the vast majority of these shootings happen in "Gun Free Zones" has absolutely nothing to do with this. Also you have zero understanding of how statistics work. Of course there are more mass shootings in the US than other countrys. WE HAVE OVER 350 FUCKING MILLION PEOPLE HERE. When adjusted for population, the US has comparable rates of mass shooting deaths to many European countries, and is not the worst by far. Therefore your claim that the US has more mass shootings is shown to be false once adjusted for the difference in population. This claim is along the lines of idiots who compare the gun deaths in the US to the gun deaths in the UK without adjusting for population difference and think they are making a valid point.



http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/
Ban guns, people start stabbing each other. The data shows that criminals are more willing to cut or stab some one with a knife than to fire a gun at them in a robbery, as a result you will just have more knife violence rather than criminals using guns as a prop to threaten people. Additionally banning guns would threaten our ability to defend our bodies, and what gives you the right to tell people they can not defend themselves? Criminals will always have access to guns, it is a fact. If only the criminals would just obey the laws we would all be safe!

Great. But a tool designed solely in order to kill or harm someone is called... A weapon. With your argument we could totally say "we should legalize missile ownership. It's a tool.
? What? How taking a gun away can make them more violent?
The very little difference being that you have much less victims and much highest chances to survive if they use a knife than if they use a gun...
Yeah because comparing alcohol to weapons is totally legit. I mean absolutely everyone can build dozens of firearms in there garage like they produces alcohol during prohibition  
Experience prove you wrong. In gun free countries, the vilains of course still have guns. But on average they have much less, much less dangerous, and use them much less than in USA.
Of course outlaws will have guns. Difference being only 10% of them will have one. And only small handgun for 98% of those 10%. That makes a difference you know?

Difference between guns and drugs, which is incredibly subtle I know, please try to think about it with your little amount of intelligence, is that drugs are made for yourself. Whereas guns are made to shoot at others.
In the first case you take the decision to harm yourself. But it's your body, why couldn't you do whatever the fuck you want with it?
In the second case, you're going to use a gun, which means you're a potential threat to absolutely anyone...

And on your little first picture, you forgot the "we get most mass shooting that all the other Western countries in the world added since 2000 but we don't see any correlation with guns" part ^^

Did I say to bar them?  I said they are nuts IMHO.  I don't see how putting bunch of old rifles in a gun safe satisfies anyone.  Stamp collections are easier to enjoy.

I view guns as tools.  I'm sure there are people who collect many other things that are dangerous.  Poisonous snakes for example. Would you say they are nuts?  I would.  Would I defend their right to do so, you bet.

Seriously, if you are really using guns, you just need few of them and be proficient with them., IMHO.

What's the point to own 10+ rifles, all in different calibers, and none of them zero-ed in?  I find every gun is unique, so shooting only few lets you become in tune with the guns you have, and put 4"@50 yards groups from your Glock, 0.5"@100 yards with your rifle. 

BTW, shooting competitions such as IPSC and others really help to hone your skills, so if you are faced with a situation you can react and shoot from your muscle memory.

I've seen gun collections, 200+ guns, some exotic calibers, never shot in ages, why would you need it.  It is junk.  Just donate them to a museum, so that other people can view them.  What is the point to lock them up in a gun safe?

The very first time I got a Colt Walker 1850s replica, then went to the range, got the spot at the far end, spent what must have been 20-30 minutes carefully loading black powder, balls and percussion caps, then pointed that monster downrange and pulled the trigger, there was this gigantica KA BOOOMMM, and all those 20 some people with their liitle 9s and 45s and 357s, they just sort of stopped and looked down that way, where the smoke was clearing.  And I was thinking, DAMN!  People really used these things?  Man that is scary. 

I can see some collecting...

I wouldn't call all gun collectors nutty. Some of them definitely are, but others just have an appreciation for old, or special firearms to them. Stamp collections might be easier for you to enjoy, but for others guns are far more enjoyable to collect. You could also argue that stamp collectors are nutty, because why would you want to collect books full of stamps just for them to sit around and collect dust? I can understand owning a firearm collection, especially if the weapons are special to you. Plus, with a large collection, every time you go to the range you can switch up what you shoot with, and I think that's more fun than constantly shooting the same gun or two for a few years straight.

Well, that is your opinion.  But others - including many in law enforcement - are taught and / or believe that the weapon should be emptied into an attacker when necessary.  Different point of view. 

And of course you understand the 2nd amendment does not have anything to do with hunting or shooting competitions.

Thirdly, why not bar collecting of every sort?  Collectors are obviously nuts.  We probably have space in the mental hospitals for all of them.

Not sure I see the correlation.  What does shooting guns have to do with religion?  Other than the majority of religious nuts are also gun nuts?

I own guns, I hunt,  I eat meat, not sure why there is something wrong with that?  

Did I say guns are not dangerous?  They are deadly.  They are designed to kill, period.

IMHO, gun collectors are nuts.  I only have few rifles and handguns.  I use all of them, and the ones I stop using, I sell.  They are tools to shoot and kill wild game, a quick chicken, or scare intruders.

BTW, firing at someone would get you into more trouble that it is really worth.  So you better have a good reason...

IMHO, banning guns does not solve the issue of gun violence.

I see several issues with gun ownership.  One is that most people don't know how to use and maintain their guns.  They are actually endangering themselves and people around them by owning guns.  

First question on a gun license application should be: "What are you going to use gun for?"  then
"Why you need it?", "Have you ever participated in a hunt?", "Went to a shooting competition?"

If the answer is NO to either of the last two questions, you don't need guns IMHO.

We provided multiple stats on violent crimes rates in USA. You debunked them saying that it's because USA is clearly diversified and that's why there is a lot of crimes.

Well as you wish. But none of you gave a single figure to back your claims.

What statistics?  Stats on the number of things you make up?  I would agree those correlate with each other.

If only there was even ONE figure to correlate what you're saying...

But that's not what the statistics say about gun freedom...

Beat me to it.  IMHO some robber may be a really bad example of a human but I'm loathe to shot him, much better to give him a chance to turn and run.  Including civilians and law enforcement, guns are probably used a hundred thousand times to peaceably get someone to comply with a request, for one time that it goes bang.

Interesting that from this point of view, the bigger and badder and scarier looking the weapon is, maybe good attributes of appearance.

I find the idea that it is better to resolve a home invasion problem through intimidation than through maiming to be quite rational.  The idea that the potential to intimidate (or maim) by use of firearms stops a majority of potential problems before they start is, to me, obviously a good thing and clearly effective.

Sad. The same guy talking about how stupid and illogical and dangerous religions are is promoting the gun ownership.

Okay, then the gun I want is a styrofoam 375 Dirty Harry mockup over my 22LR revolver.

Add the laser, too, please.  I do not think it is implausible that the bad guy seeing that red dot on his chest is going to quickly find his inner coward.

I had 357 magnum S&W revolver and it was fun, but the long barrel and the kick was not something I'd recommend.

My wife could not shoot 357 with one hand.  .45ACP, .40 or even 9mm are much better for other people in your family to learn and become proficient shooters.   9mm hollow points in 147gr would leave a nasty wound, and would kill as well as .45ACP.

But 357 has this "Dirty Harry" look.  Any intruder will freeze at the sight of 357 cocked magnum revolver

Nothing to disagree with in that, but it remains the AR15 family is the most popular.  Quite likely it's due to the platform versatility and interchangeable components.  I am okay with the home defense concern with a little 22LR, but that includes being ready to use it as a club if needed....

Posters who keep harping on the "scary black rifle" do not even comprehend that rate of fire from bolt action can be quite comparable to semi automatic.  Further the US Military designed the M16(military version of AR15) to do three shot bursts, not "full auto" specifically because of the ineffectiveness of full auto "spray and pray."  Which proves that "maximum killing power" is not a function of full auto.

And it has little to do with semi-auto.  It's not that you can't have a 30 round magazine on a bolt action hunting rifle.  Further if there is any practical difference between a 357 magnum revolver and a 45 ACP I really can't see it.  

Maybe these guys would be happy if all the Scary Black Rifles were outlawed, and rifles could only be owned if they were Pink?

Not sure about AR15, but I took M14 hunting a couple of times, and I can tell you, semis are not optimal for hunting.  You have to walk loaded because the action is just too loud to load when you need it.  I find bolt action nice and quiet.  More accurate.  You just need one shot when hunting anyway.  After you take your shot, you run to (or after) the game.
With semi you always have to check if your safety is on, so that some twig does not unlock it, especially when you go over dense bush with other people near by. Bolt is the "go to" gun for hunting, at least for me.  

But for protecting your property, AR15 (or Mini14) is probably the best, 16" barrel, trijcon etc.  For inside the house, German Shepherd and .45ACP is a good solution for most issues.