Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 142. (Read 450551 times)
I im in favor of the right to be armed. criminals got their gun and peaceful citizens has the right to defend themselves
i think that this a right decision to control on guns. there may be a polocy that in one family we have ony one gun for our security only.
It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way
What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know.
Meh. You seem to forget that the government = the people.
The government can't "kill everyone". The government is only merely a few hundred persons.
By the government you really mean the army. Which are citizens.
So it's not going to be the government against the people. It's going to be a part of the population against another part of the population. So civil war.
I think the US needs gun control but that must also extend to more rigorous background checks,closing loop holes so that people with issues don't get access to weapons (such as convicted criminals,kids,teenagers,people with mental health issues or anger issues,stalkers,suicidal people,etc).I think the issue of gun control needs to adopt a more comprehensive approach for it to be successful.I live in the UK where people are banned from having guns which I think is good.No approach will eliminate murders completely but I believe it's important to try to address this issue however we can instead of just opposing measure that some people just don't like.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
Bah.
http://www.guns.com/2014/01/15/uk-criminals-using-antique-homemade-guns/
Ooooooh. The good old one "I don't have real counter argument so let me put out the one exception to the rule completly strange and exceptional enough to make the headlines and which is also 2 years old just to prove my point" ^^
Have you considered that 3d printers really makes these arguments all moot?
It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way
What happens if the police are criminals, or other criminals get a hold of this list? What if the government becomes genocidal killing people for whatever reasons they deem "the law". History shows firearm registration leads to confiscation. A background check is run on every person who buys a gun from a gun dealer. In the vast majority of states this is also required for all private sales as well. This supposed "loophole" doesn't really exist as any actual gun owner in the US would know.
It's ok to register all people that have weapons.Police should know who have weapons. People wiht criminal past shouldn't be allowed to have it at least not in legal way
I think the US needs gun control but that must also extend to more rigorous background checks,closing loop holes so that people with issues don't get access to weapons (such as convicted criminals,kids,teenagers,people with mental health issues or anger issues,stalkers,suicidal people,etc).I think the issue of gun control needs to adopt a more comprehensive approach for it to be successful.I live in the UK where people are banned from having guns which I think is good.No approach will eliminate murders completely but I believe it's important to try to address this issue however we can instead of just opposing measure that some people just don't like.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
Bah.
http://www.guns.com/2014/01/15/uk-criminals-using-antique-homemade-guns/
Ooooooh. The good old one "I don't have real counter argument so let me put out the one exception to the rule completly strange and exceptional enough to make the headlines and which is also 2 years old just to prove my point" ^^
I think the US needs gun control but that must also extend to more rigorous background checks,closing loop holes so that people with issues don't get access to weapons (such as convicted criminals,kids,teenagers,people with mental health issues or anger issues,stalkers,suicidal people,etc).I think the issue of gun control needs to adopt a more comprehensive approach for it to be successful.I live in the UK where people are banned from having guns which I think is good.No approach will eliminate murders completely but I believe it's important to try to address this issue however we can instead of just opposing measure that some people just don't like.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
Bah.
http://www.guns.com/2014/01/15/uk-criminals-using-antique-homemade-guns/
I think the US needs gun control but that must also extend to more rigorous background checks,closing loop holes so that people with issues don't get access to weapons (such as convicted criminals,kids,teenagers,people with mental health issues or anger issues,stalkers,suicidal people,etc).I think the issue of gun control needs to adopt a more comprehensive approach for it to be successful.I live in the UK where people are banned from having guns which I think is good.No approach will eliminate murders completely but I believe it's important to try to address this issue however we can instead of just opposing measure that some people just don't like.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
I think if people want to own a gun,stop complaining about gun control and pass a background check like everyone else and leave the rest of us to get on with our lives.Just my opinion.
If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.
Yeah safer...
Well if you call a world where anyone can kill anyone a safer place that matches.
Obama’s Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action
WASHINGTON — The centerpiece of a plan for stemming gun violence that President Obama announced last month largely amounts to this: an updated web page and 10,000 pamphlets that federal agents will give out at gun shows.
In a tearful display of anger and sadness in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama ordered steps intended to limit gun violence and vowed to clamp down on what he called widespread evasion of a federal law requiring gun dealers to obtain licenses.
But few concrete actions have been put in motion by law enforcement agencies to aggressively carry out the gun dealer initiative, despite the lofty expectations that Mr. Obama and top aides set.
Obama administration officials said they had no specific plans to increase investigations, arrests or prosecutions of gun sellers who do not comply with the law. No task forces have been assembled. No agents or prosecutors have been specifically reassigned to such cases. And no funding has been reallocated to accelerate gun sale investigations in Washington or at the offices of the 93 United States attorneys.
The absence of aggressive enforcement is a reminder of the limits of Mr. Obama’s executive authority, even as he repeatedly asserts the power of the Oval Office to get things done in the face of inaction by a Republican Congress.
Even the National Rifle Association, which fights anything it perceives as a threat to gun rights, has not sued to block Mr. Obama’s actions, and gun groups profess little reason for concern. “Nothing, from what we can see, has changed,” said Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group.
Administration officials say that with Congress unwilling to take any legislative action, the White House’s plan goes as far as Mr. Obama can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental illnesses.
“The actions the president announced last month represent the maximum the administration can do under the current law,” said Eric Schultz, the deputy White House press secretary, “namely increasing mental health treatment and reporting, improving public safety, managing the future of gun safety technology and, of course, enhancing the background check system.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/obamas-lofty-plans-on-gun-violence-amount-to-little-action.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
WASHINGTON — The centerpiece of a plan for stemming gun violence that President Obama announced last month largely amounts to this: an updated web page and 10,000 pamphlets that federal agents will give out at gun shows.
In a tearful display of anger and sadness in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama ordered steps intended to limit gun violence and vowed to clamp down on what he called widespread evasion of a federal law requiring gun dealers to obtain licenses.
But few concrete actions have been put in motion by law enforcement agencies to aggressively carry out the gun dealer initiative, despite the lofty expectations that Mr. Obama and top aides set.
Obama administration officials said they had no specific plans to increase investigations, arrests or prosecutions of gun sellers who do not comply with the law. No task forces have been assembled. No agents or prosecutors have been specifically reassigned to such cases. And no funding has been reallocated to accelerate gun sale investigations in Washington or at the offices of the 93 United States attorneys.
The absence of aggressive enforcement is a reminder of the limits of Mr. Obama’s executive authority, even as he repeatedly asserts the power of the Oval Office to get things done in the face of inaction by a Republican Congress.
Even the National Rifle Association, which fights anything it perceives as a threat to gun rights, has not sued to block Mr. Obama’s actions, and gun groups profess little reason for concern. “Nothing, from what we can see, has changed,” said Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group.
Administration officials say that with Congress unwilling to take any legislative action, the White House’s plan goes as far as Mr. Obama can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and people with mental illnesses.
“The actions the president announced last month represent the maximum the administration can do under the current law,” said Eric Schultz, the deputy White House press secretary, “namely increasing mental health treatment and reporting, improving public safety, managing the future of gun safety technology and, of course, enhancing the background check system.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/08/us/politics/obamas-lofty-plans-on-gun-violence-amount-to-little-action.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.
Right! Military and police are people. The only difference they have is, they have better training in using guns, and they have more guns.
If military and police who are people just like us have guns, why not the rest of us? Military and police kill more people than the rest of us could ever think of killing.
If guns would be accessible to everyone, the world would be a much safer place. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves againsts aggressors.
I gotta admit. Guard dogs can be very noisy, just before they die.
Being noisy at an appropriate time is all I would ask of a guard dog. After that 'I've got things covered' so to speak. In this modern age of technology there are substitutes for a guard dog which don't have some of the dis-advantages that dogs do. I consider my alert systems to be even more important than my guns in terms of an over-all protection system.
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
Who said you needed to poison them? Most "guard dogs" will be perfectly happy to ignore you for a few slices of bologna. Luckily you can't disable a firearm with bologna (unless you can get it inside the gun some how I would assume, I have never attempted to stop a firearm with lunch meat).
WTF? xD
Anyway, guard dogs are really good for sure! But it's up to personal choice, you can't take a guard dog just to replace your dog!
I mean, it's alive and got feelings and all. You're not going to just but it in your garden to protect you!
And yeah as you explained rather well, it's not as reliable as a gun xD
I gotta admit. Guard dogs can be very noisy, just before they die.
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
Who said you needed to poison them? Most "guard dogs" will be perfectly happy to ignore you for a few slices of bologna. Luckily you can't disable a firearm with bologna (unless you can get it inside the gun some how I would assume, I have never attempted to stop a firearm with lunch meat).
WTF? xD
Anyway, guard dogs are really good for sure! But it's up to personal choice, you can't take a guard dog just to replace your dog!
I mean, it's alive and got feelings and all. You're not going to just but it in your garden to protect you!
And yeah as you explained rather well, it's not as reliable as a gun xD
Did we seriously started to suggest to replace guns by dogs? xD
Well seems rather obvious why it's not a solution, and the first one being that your gun isn't going to shit on your sofa and won't cost you a fortune of vet and food!
Moreover, your gun doesn't need to sleep and can't get sick and doesn't take lots of place.
Not saying dogs are bad, but they have nothing to do with this debate I believe xD
Well seems rather obvious why it's not a solution, and the first one being that your gun isn't going to shit on your sofa and won't cost you a fortune of vet and food!
Moreover, your gun doesn't need to sleep and can't get sick and doesn't take lots of place.
Not saying dogs are bad, but they have nothing to do with this debate I believe xD
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
Who said you needed to poison them? Most "guard dogs" will be perfectly happy to ignore you for a few slices of bologna. Luckily you can't disable a firearm with bologna (unless you can get it inside the gun some how I would assume, I have never attempted to stop a firearm with lunch meat).
So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
If a lot of people started using dogs, or if people who were really good targets from the point of view of thieves started using dogs, a lot more dogs would be poisoned with juicy slabs of meat. Granted, this is more difficult with an inside dog than one which roams the outside yard.But the important point is that any single rule for defense is inadequate. Technically, this leads to suggesting "layered defense" which has a number of aspects. However, the immediate moment that we mention something like this, one thing becomes obvious.
And that is that people with no experience with firearms, or issues of security, have no business trying to tell other people how to defend themselves, and they need to simply STFU.
...
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
Agreed. Criminals won't apply to this law. And I'm saying this even if I, personally, am against guns.
And a dog will always be a better alternative to a gun. No doubt about it.
From seemingly valid research that I've read, in an area like mine (rural, and most people owning defensive firearms) criminals studiously avoid occupied homes. This matches my personal experience. When I lived in the Bay Area and my rural property was not obviously occupied there were a lot of problems. Now that I live here full time and the word is out, no problems at all. The problems I did have were in at least one case from professional criminals who knew what they were doing and had scouted ahead of time.
Anyway, the study says that dogs are a near perfect proxy for a human occupied home in terms of how likely criminals are to attempt an assault. I would suspect that to some extent a criminal would be worried that the presence of a dog would increase the likelihood of encountering a locked and loaded homeowner or a similarly configured neighbor. So, although dogs are clearly quite effective, the effectiveness might be, in part, a symbiosis between dogs and guns.
Right. And contrary to the movies, criminals are not particularly bright. Otherwise they would shoot the dogs. After all, it doesn't take much to make a silencer.
The dangerous criminals are the ones in government, trying to make us think that gun control is the way to go. After all, they already steal our money in the form of taxes. Why not make us complete slaves so that they can live off more of our labor... maybe all of it.
These criminals should move to Northwestern Africa where it is easy to buy slaves who are already trained into complete submission.
Jump to: