Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 158. (Read 450471 times)

I like living in peace and calm. So yeah, i support gun control

ANALYSIS: In One Year, Gun Owners Stopped Hundreds Of Criminals, Saved Countless Lives [INFOGRAPHIC]



Gun carrying, private citizens who used firearms to stop criminal attacks saved at least 283 potential victims in a period between July 2014 and July 2015, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation analysis.

TheDCNF concluded its analysis as President Barack Obama announced Tuesday another push by his administration to tighten federal gun control laws in an attempt to curb gun violence.

While Obama quotes the more than 30,000 gun deaths in a year — omitting that 60 percent are suicides, 6 percent are gang related, 3 percent are accidents, and the vast majority of the rest occur in urban areas — TheDCNF found that a noteworthy number of kids, the elderly, and women successfully defended themselves against criminals by use of gun fire.

TheDCNF analyzed 195 random incidents where gun owners used firearms to save their lives, and often the lives of others. We wanted to know, not just how many perpetrators were killed, but how many potential victims were saved.

In the interactive graphic below, clicking demographics boxes will narrow your results to see specific data points. For example, see handgun incidents in Texas by clicking “TX” in the State category and “handgun” in the Gun category. Click on individual pins on the map for more details.


Of the nearly 200 cases we analyzed, people carrying guns saved at least 283 potential victims, whether it was a man protecting his family from thugs or a 9mm-toting grandma warding off a burglar in her living room.

In 60 of those cases, the single gun carrier was the only potential victim. In 43 cases, there were 2 potential victims. In nine cases there were three victims and in nine more cases there were four or more victims.

In 74 cases, it was unknown how many potential victims were present but it can be assumed there was at least one.  If the 74 potential victims followed the same distribution as the other cases, then the number of potential victims would actually be at least 335.

In one case, four Florida men put on masks and grabbed weapons in a planned burglary attempt of a Melbourne home in June of 2015. When one of the men came inside, he held a woman and her child at gunpoint. As the woman protected her child with her own body, the homeowner pulled out his handgun and opened fire on the robbers. The criminals fled, one injured, and the three victims were left unharmed.

The data shows that little less than a third of the people defending themselves with guns were women. Of the 173 cases where gender is known, 133 were male and 40 were female.

The most common age of a defender was middle aged, in their 40’s or 50’s. It’s also worth noting that of the 72 cases where the age of the defender is known, 15 defenders were elderly people over 60 years old and 10 were minors under 18 years old. They were most often defending themselves against adult males under 30 years old.

Phyllis Law, a 63-year-old Alabama grandmother, was a victim of multiple robberies to her home and had even boarded up her windows to keep thieves out. But in July of 2014, a male robber broke into her home, and Law hid with her 9mm pistol while her granddaughter hid in the closet.

Law told Fox 10 News that when the man came into her home, “I jumped up and just started shooting and he hollered and turned around and ran A lot of them come in people’s house, kill them, take what they want and leave. Like I said, not here.”

Young people used guns for self defense as well. In September of 2014, an 11-year-old Oklahoma girl awoke around 4 a.m. to find that a man had broken into her home and stabbed her mother. The girl grabbed a handgun and shot the man twice, saving her mother’s life. The mother said she had just taught the daughter how to use the gun for self defense the week before.

Gun carriers were able to defend themselves usually without killing the suspect. Of 217 suspects in our analysis, 148 survived their encounter with a gun carrier, whether they survived a gunshot wound or simply fled. The remaining 69 were killed, so more than half the suspects involved survived.

Most often, when people used guns to defend themselves, it was in the home. Of the 194 cases where location is known, gun owners used firearms to defend the home 114 times. They pulled the trigger in a place of business or in public about 40 times each.

In many cases, it’s unclear how many potential victims would be saved. For example, if a man robbed a convenience store at gunpoint but was stopped by a man with a gun, it may not be documented how many people were in the store who could have been harmed.

Handguns were by far the most popular firearm of choice for self defense, with more than half of defenders using them. The DCNF obtained the stories from gunssavelives.net and independently verified the data.


http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/05/gun-control-owners-criminals/

Those that revolted were less than 10% of the population. Most people wanted to just cooperate with king George and play nice.

They understood the ignorance of the people all too well.

In America, the only reason that the government has as much power as it does, is that the people who set up the Constitution hid the power of the people.

Why did they hide the power of the people? Because at that time, the U.S. government was very small, completely untested, and the founders recognized that both they and the people needed to have a strong government if they were going to be able to hold the powers of the various super-nations of the world at bay.

The U.S. founding fathers never dreamed that the people would be as ignorant as they are proving themselves to be. They thought that the people would find the hidden power that every man and woman has... power hidden in the words of the Constitution and other founding documents, but in reality, power outside of these documents, even though the documents reference this power.

Read the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution itself, and the Amendments, and see if you can figure out what that power of the individual over the American government is.

With this power, a few Americans have completely stopped paying income and other taxes, legally. Others have beaten all kinds of law enforcement people in court. Still others have taken complete control of their land so that government is not able to take it from them.

Government is out of control. Isn't it about time that we learn what our power is, and how to exercise it? That's what gun control is all about... controlling our government rather than letting it control us.

Note: There are a few other countries of the world whose people have this kind of control built into their government... where individual people can and are stopping their governments, legally, in all kinds of ways. Among these countries are Canada, Great Britain and other countries of the British Isles, Australia, and India. America has the most straight forward method of any.

Criminals are criminals , killers are killers and the courts and laws do nothing to keep them from robbing and murdering people. government blames the gun and a group of people blame the gun but no one wants to change the laws to treat criminals as criminals or murders as murders.

and exactly what is your brain going to do when some lunatic breaks into your home and points twenty knives at your throat? are you going to think those knives away? do you have superpowers? firearms, like them or not, are a deterrent and protection against crime, as far as civilian use goes. they can and should be used to protect the home and nearby people in the case of a violent event. keep your sheltered 'ill be fine' mindset out of here.

the government's popularity or how 'good' it may be has little to do with stopping crime imo. there is a correlation in reducing the number of criminal acts committed however.
save for a dystopian society where everything is micromanaged by the government overlords, there will always be crime regardless of the state society is in.

I support gun control to limit the number of killing crimes as long as there is a good government. But when the government is corrupted and no one take his rights or a country has some unstable system, guns are required for everyone to protect himself and his family from evil people

you can control yourself and your brain you dont need any gun
If the gun on and you cant control yourself , this is mean  early're in trouble.

Yessir, I said beer. 

And a 40 ounce mug would do it.

Now does this here beer come with da frog, or do I git one of my girls to go out to the soggy bottom land and bring us some in? Because they love that Bad Frog.  Say it make them feel like a princess, they do.

Did you say beer?

You know this is totally gross stuff, right?  I mean that's one sick gross looking creature there.

Now we need to stick to being civilized, and just keep them toads swimming in our beer.

And don't none of those perverted liberal authoritarian control freaks try to f*** with our beer.

It Is Illegal To Lick A Toad - California Bail Bonds








Specifically, it is illegal for a person to lick the Colorado River Toad, aka the Sonoran Desert toad, aka Bufo alvarius.

This species of toad secretes a venom that contains bufotenine which, when ingested, can cause hallucinogenic effects.

Bufotenine is a controlled substance in the United States. There were many arrests that were bufotenine-related throughout the Southwestern states, during the 1980s and 1990s. There was actually a toad-licking heyday during the 1960s and arrests were numerous..

A Kansas City, Missouri man was arrested in 2007 for being in possession of a Colorado River Toad, allegedly with the intention of using the frog to get high from the hallucinogenic venom. The young man, 21-year-old David Theiss, was released on bail following his arrest.


http://www.888bailbond.com/news/the-illegal-unlawful/it-is-illegal-to-lick-a-toad/

This is a brilliant idea!  On the basis of frog kissing control, we can implement controls over when people are able to use their mouths.  That will have ancillary benefits for other social justice goals being implemented in parallel with these objectives.

Personally, I do agree in increasing frog kissing control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to kiss frogs, do it anyway, because of an lose frog kissing control system. As long as the kissing frog control, particular in the US cartoons, won't violate Disney princesses, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on kissing frogs.

Personally, I do agree in increasing foot control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get boots, has them anyway, because of an lose boot control system. As long as the boot control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on boots.

Boots, after all, are used to kick people.  And hurt them.

Next on the agenda:  Hand control.

Personally, I do agree in increasing hand control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to use guns, has used them anyway, because of an lose hand control system. As long as the hand control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on hands.

After all, if the hand is - reasonably within the power of constitutionality and maintaining the second amendment - restrained - so that the fingers cannot pull triggers - there shouldn't be any problem.

Right?

Personally, I do agree in increasing speech control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to speak freely, do it anyway, because of an lose speech control system. As long as the speech control, particular in the US, won't violate the first amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on speech.

Enough of this "the earth is flat" magical bullshit.

Gun control cannot stop anyone from getting guns who shouldn't have them. If there is a will, there is always a way.
Gun control only stops those who should have guns from legally getting them, categorically violating the second, and other, amendments, that codified, NOT created, human rights.

Personally, I do agree in increasing gun control. We have seen in the past how people who shouldn't be able to get guns, has them anyway, because of an lose gun control system. As long as the gun control, particular in the US, won't violate the second amendment, there shouldn't be any problem implementing further control on guns.