Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 168. (Read 450551 times)

The absolute ONLY way to do this is mind control. If you don't have mind control over all the people, somebody will build more guns.

Do you really want mind control over yourself? Aren't we being propagandized by the media, etc., enough as it is? Wake up. Gun control and mind control lead to slavery.

Get back on the plantation and get to work you slave wannabe.

The only deaths saved where guns are banned, are violent criminals'.

just ban all guns every were save the deaths.

You don't think that if we talked to them nicely, and told them we were going to get rid of all our guns, they'd be nice to us too?

I am against gun control 100%. anyway criminals don't care about laws.

Way to stop that armed robber -

https://youtu.be/vsVCHE7ayPE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo

The desperate moving to the countryside is not what I'm seeing.  If anything it is just the opposite as regulations and financial snares (health care in particular) make it non-viable for people without moderate means to make a living.  As for the crime in my rural area, it seems to be almost exclusively home-grown jackasses.  That is to say, I'm not aware of criminals from the more metro areas setting up shop out here (which, again, I attribute to the high rate of gun possession and the relative simplicity and effectiveness of local monitoring by citizen groups.)

My read of the future is pretty much the opposite of yours.  Those more on the margin will be lured into 'human settlements' by various social services (e.g., free food, child care, etc.)  The more rural areas which are allowed to remain inhabited by humans will be part time homes for the well off with enough 'responsible' citizens allowed to remain permanently in order to keep an eye on things.

I can pretty much promise that those who remain in the 'upper middle class' or above are not going to be living in stack-n-pack shoe boxes in the 'human habitat' zones and riding bicycles or taking buses everywhere.  They will fund the propaganda to convince the plebs that 'this is what everyone wants', but they have no plans to herded into that nightmare.

Gun control with crime involved is pointing to a breakdown of society. People who are desperate will gradually move to the countryside. There are lots of lands around America that are only owned by government. People will form their own small governments as they join together with their guns to battle off forest rangers, kinda like the Bundy incident, but with folks living on the land that they take over because it is the only logical desperate measure.

With communications as they are, the face of America will change as these groups strive to help each other.

I would not say that engaging in almost any form of crime is 'cowardly.'  There are a variety of risks, but having one's face peeled off by a shotgun blast is certainly one of the more emotionally potent.

Much crime is driven by desperation and some by run-of-the-mill stupidity and lack of self control.  These classes are the ones who end up losing most often and are certainly the ones who pose the bigger risk to the innocent victim.  Criminals also victimize one another probably at least as often as they do the innocent.  When the FBI studied the problem of 'guns', they realized that for most criminals, not possessing a gun was a non-option largely because of this.  Thus, the strategy of making use of a gun in the commission of a crime carry extra-high penalties.  This was remarkably effective which is why real gun problems (as opposed to phony staged 'active shooter' events) have been declining significantly over the last four decades and are now at very tolerable levels.

I'd say generally that criminal are business people in a particular business and make rational cost/benefit analyses just like any other people in any other business.  As a gun owner I do my best to make sure that criminals are cognizant of the risk side of the equation.

What seems to be the case in the USA is that when the bad guys think there are probably some guns in and around an area, they avoid it.  It doesn't matter if it's one gun or a hundred.

For example, they don't attack the local AR15 club meeting or the Glock two day training sessions.

They attack the defenseless old lady at the bus stop, or the school cafeteria (gun free zone).

Hence, instilling that fear into the bad guy is what is important, more so than having a weapon for your own protection or that of those you love.

What is sought is the creation of a cultural milieu in which the bad guy is scared to make bad acts.

They are basically cowards....   

I strongly support private gun control. Police does nothing most of the time.
Guns can be used only to save yourself from danger. And I think it is fair use.

Interesting.  That means that women in India are effectively disarmed.  The rare bird may opt for martial arts training, but by and large the only effective deterrent to stronger, bigger adversaries (women against men) is firearms.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Sound familiar? Keep hearing the "same old argument" all the time? Claim that "line is worn out"? Think Americans (REAL Americans that is) should be creative and come up with a different argument?

Well, you keep hearing the same thing all the time because FACTS DON'T CHANGE! Get a clue gun grabbers, don't expect to hear anything different than you've heard over and over.The facts are so simple, yet to you so confusing.

In that case I misunderstood you. My apologies.

Rather than recommending the women to buy guns, the government should try to bring down the crime rate. May be they should legalize prostitution and pornography. Most of the people who commit rape in India are frustrated single men, and the situation is exacerbated by the skewed gender ratio. Many of the men are unable to find wives, and prostitution is illegal.


Yes. The cheapest (legal) gun costs more than $1,500 in India. Getting a gun license is extra. Taxes on fire-arms are like 2,000% or something. But the biggest issue is that it is extremely hard to get a gun license. It can take many years.

Is that 1500 in US$?

If so it's time for 3d printed guns in India.

You dint read my statement clearly and are saying a totally different thing. 


I said girls "need" and not "should" buy a gun and only those who can afford need to get a gun. Getting a license is so tough and you're talking about girls not being able to afford? 

In a country where 50% of the people defecate in the open, just because they can't afford to build toilets, you are suggesting that 650 million people should purchase fire-arms? The total expenses for owning a cheap fire-arm in India can run in to more than $1,500, including the purchase price, license fee and taxes. I don't think that too many females will be able to afford them.

I'm from a fiercely pro-2nd area and I've almost never seen anyone open carry.  It makes one look like a jackass and that has been the case for at least as long as I've been around.  I do 'open carry' on my own property from time to time.  Only when I need to go check the driveway to see why the alarm went off in the middle of the night, or at certain times of the year when there are a lot of bears around.

I hate to say it, but basic background checks make reasonable sense.  As far as I can tell they are already in place...I have to have one run every time I buy a firearm.  It doesn't break my heart if ex-cons (violent ones) cannot legally get a gun, but the flip side is that potential for abuse is a clear danger.

I'm highly negative about 'mental health assessments' for anything, and especially not for gun ownership.  The main reason is that one can hardly find a more fucked up and nutzo group of 'professional' than those in the mental health profession and they are the last people I'd call on to assess mental health of others.  I will bet that within a matter of a few years I would be considered some sort of a 'threat' simply on the basis of my calling bullshit on the various fairly obvious psy-ops that the government is undertaking.  e.g., the Sandy Hook hoax and in terms of 'active shooter' events, pretty much most of the rest since that time.

I would like to see some little thing such as the 'gunshow loophole' (if it even exists) tied up, but a poison pill inserted.  Specifically, something like any time more than 1% of the gun owner's list is rendered for the purposes of gun confiscation, the entire law and every other law which touches on the 2nd becomes null and void and the gun ownership list must be destroyed.

How are "false positives" and "system errors/downtime" and "disqualified because you were a victimless criminal many years ago" and taxes/bribes to exercise the fundamental human right pretty reasonable? Armed criminals aren't going to wait for either of the former to be resolved (too often requiring thousands of dollars to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit through the exhaustion of appeals with no guarantee of ultimate success), or you to be able to afford the latter taxes/bribes in addition to the huge cost of a decent tool, so you can legally defend yourself with it.

Basic backround checks, allow people to carry weapons openly and concealed.