Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 154. (Read 450482 times)

Yeah let everyone own a gun and let usa still be (by far) the first country in deaths by firearms!

Doesn't matter if 99% of the time the people killed by being shot by other citizens were totally innocent of anything. It's the constitution!

Criminals are more than happy to get prosecuted for buying illegal stuff over the internet, since law enforcement could be 99.99999% of the "sellers" of same (or running DNMs as honeypots), behind the internet's cloak of anonymity?

Criminals want the #1A-protected internet banned/infringed, because that's exactly how the human right to self-defense, and all other human rights defended by same, are gaining ground!

Yes, we should do exactly the opposite of what violent criminals want. They don't want to be shot? They can stop fucking being violent criminals.

Cite or perish? I don't understand sorry.

So whe should do just the opposite of what criminals want? Damn, it's a shame most of them are more than happy to be able to use internet to buys illegal stuff. Well let's ban the internet then!

So the only place guns can be sold is the black market then, because DNA tests being used for pre-crime is Philip K. Dick-level science fiction.


Bold-faced sociopathic bullshit.



Cite or perish, along with the violent criminals (100% of them) who support "gun control" and any means to achieve that end.

Yeah cause it happens everyday. And guns are used only that way. The 11 000 deaths every year in the USA by firearms and the 90 000 non lethal injuries due to guns only concern people that violently entered houses to loot people. Not at all kids, stupid neighbors problems or anything else.

only cowards use gun , why would you need a gun in the first place , u think middle east a dangerous place , its not ,US is the most dangerous place as u can hear abt gun violence on a daily basis

I'm not disagreeing with you but my impression was that he was talking about civilians on the street, subways, around town carrying weapons, not home defense.

Just happens i believe we need to address in city defense, as well as home defense.

lets say mr smith barges into your home with a glock and starts looting the shit out of your place. now, exactly what 'non - lethal alternative' are you doing to use against that? are your hands going to stop those bullets with some strange ESP power? no. are you going to go all star wars up on that glock with a stick? definitely no. is your potato gun going top out do those bullets? no. so exactly is this 'alternative' youre thinking of? because honestly, there really isnt anything that stands up to a gunfight. ever heard the phrase 'you just brought a knife to a gunfight?' pretty applicable here.

Most police are less qualified to use a gun than most civilians whom I know whom have guns.  The exception is some police who are Iraq/Afgan veterans, or whom are sport shooters, or on special detail like SWAT team and have special training.  But cops in many areas are required ONLY to do 50 rounds through their service weapon per year.  In other areas it might be 50 rounds per 3 month period.

Maybe it's just that I know guys who train regularly, so there is bias. 

The "Concealed Carry License" in the USA varies per state, but typical is 50 rounds for qualification, and it is then good for something like four years.

There is no training required in most US states for simply buying and owning a weapon.

Contrary to what you've asserted, there is no "non-lethal alternative" which will substitute for a firearm.

It's just wrong for civilians to carry weapons.
People that are trained constantly and know and see the repercussions from carrying weapons and the damage they do day in and day out should be the only ones to carry them. Because it takes just one mistake and someone loses their lives.
There are a lot of non-lethal alternatives that can be used for self defense.

Because it FEELS bad to see violent criminals get shot or stopped at unfired gunpoint by civilians, and FEELINGS always trump the human right to self-defense.

A lot of people feel exactly like you do, then something bad happens to them.  Then they change their mind.

Such as the report from Pakistan as of today.

A chemistry teacher who tried to shield his students by opening fire on Taliban militants during a deadly attack at a Pakistani university was known as "The Protector" even before his death in a hail of bullets Wednesday.
Lecturer Syed Hamid Husain, a 32-year-old assistant professor of chemistry at the Bacha Khan university in Charsadda, ordered his students to stay inside as Taliban gunmen stormed the school near the city of Peshawar on Wednesday, leaving at least 21 people dead.
Students told of how the father-of-two opened fire on assailants as they rampaged across campus, giving the young people time to flee before he was cut down by gunfire.
"We saw three terrorists shouting, 'Allah is great!' and rushing towards the stairs of our department," one man told reporters.
"One student jumped out of the classroom through the window. We never saw him get up."
He described seeing Husain holding a pistol and firing at the attackers.

I am just curious.  Why would you not have allowed Husain to have his gun?

Mental disorders are genetics, so, a DNA test is necessary if someone wants to buy a gun.

I honestly feel guns should only be possessed by the army and police. I don't like the idea of civilians owning a gun, it's very risky going out keeping in mind that someone walking besides you would have an armed pistol in their pocket and would be ready to trigger it at any time at their willingness and you wont be able to do anything about it. It only builds Chaos, if you honestly need protection inform the cops, no guns for civilians.

El Chapo found with Fast and Furious .50 caliber as exec-privilege claim quashed





Remember Operation Fast and Furious? The scandal over the ATF’s botched straw-man sting has long hung over the Department of Justice and the Obama administration, thanks in large part to a bogus claim of executive privilege over the communications relating to the operation. Thousands of weapons went across the border into Mexico without sufficient tracking capabilities to retrieve them, and they wound up in the hands of the cartels. Hundreds have been found at murder scenes in Mexico, and at least one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry) has been killed with Fast and Furious weapons.

Just how far did those weapons go? Fox News reports that they went all the way to the top of the cartels:

    A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

    A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car, or as it was intended, take down a helicopter. …

    When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives checked serial numbers of the eight weapons found in his possession, they found one of the two .50-caliber weapons traced back to the ATF program, sources said.

    Federal officials told Fox News they are not sure how many of the weapons seized from Guzman’s house actually originated in the U.S. and where they were purchased, but are investigating.

    Out of the roughly 2,000 weapons sold through Fast and Furious, 34 were .50 caliber rifles that can take down a helicopter, according to officials.

Jeff Dunetz reminds us of the context for OF&F:

    Emails released in 2011 revealed that ATF big shots wanted to use the illegal gun sales in operation Fast and Furious to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3”. The new rule would require  U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” The fancy name, Demand Letter 3 comes from the fact that it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information. If that’s how then name projects, why didn’t they name Fast and Furious, “Asinine Project 1?”

    Fast and Furious was a sick attempt to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights by selling guns to Mexican Gun cartels. The program was a train wreck whose effects are still being discovered.

So why hasn’t Congress done more in the past five years to hold officials accountable for the lethal attempt to create anti-gun hysteria and pave the way for more gun regulation? In part, it’s because Congress can’t access all of the evidence from the government operation. In 2012, then-Attorney General Eric Holder requested a claim of executive privilege from Barack Obama, who granted it after e-mails showed “extensive” communication with the White House on the operation. The case has been in the courts ever since.

Yesterday, a judge denied executive privilege after more than three years of stonewalling by the Obama administration, calling their claim a little too selective, although it’s not a complete victory for Congress:

    The very information that the administration sought to deny investigators with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reformhad been made public in 2012 by the Justice Department’s inspector general’s review of a Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives operation known as “Fast and Furious,” U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in a 32-page opinion.

    The trafficking operation allowed hundreds of firearms to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartel enforcers and prompted numerous investigations and a protracted political fight in which the House voted in 2012 to hold then-Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over documents related to the ATF operation to the committee. The dispute prompted the committee’s court challenge

    “There is no need to balance the need against the impact that the revelation of any record could have on candor in future executive decision making, since any harm that might flow from the public revelation of the deliberations at issue here has already been self-inflicted,” Jackson wrote. “The emails and memoranda that are responsive to the subpoena were described in detail in a report by the Department of JusticeInspector General that has already been released to the public.”

House Oversight chair Jason Chaffetz noted that the order didn’t give access to all of the documents sought in House subpoenas, but that “it is an important step forward.” The discovery of a .50 caliber in El Chapo’s lair provided courtesy of the Department of Justice might be another step forward in galvanizing public opinion to finally bring the sordid history of Fast and Furious completely into the light.


http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/20/el-chapo-found-with-fast-and-furious-50-caliber-as-exec-privilege-claim-quashed/

We need more guns and bigger guns personally, to control the criminals. See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13617273.

I think the intention of controlling and regulating guns is good initiative. The problem is the market that can not be controlled, always existed and will always exist, there will always be people selling arms and buying them even if there is control.

then what exactly is going to be the deterrent against criminals with guns that want to cause a massacre? are these people supposed to just say 'hey man, dont shoot me pls k tnx' and be on their way? fact is, if people want guns, the law wont stop them from getting a gun if they really want it, and only others carrying a gun will be enough to stop anyone looking to take as many lives as they can in any given setting.

I'm not sure what you're saying but I don't think should have the right to roam the streets with guns of any kind - look how many accidents are because people can't handle cars - it's the same thing, just switch the trigger for the steering wheel.

Almost all weapons that soldiers go to war with, including your bogus example, are infringed out of civilians' hands in the US.


Not possible to control people without exterminating the human race. Good thing cops are robots, and all government statistics that show cops commit more crimes than civilian gun owners, are fake.