Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 186. (Read 450482 times)

I agree, gun control results in more violent crime.


The training course seems reasonable on the surface, but what about poor people? Aren't you effectively limiting the most in danger segment of the populations ability to protect themselves by forcing them to pay for a class, take off work, and actually go to classes? As for the waiting period, this is already law in most states.

By federal law everyone has a background check on them when buying a gun from a dealer. As far as your mental health evaluation, 1/5th of the entire country is on at least 1 psychiatric medication. Even if the mental health evaluations start off as reasonable, you know damned well it won't stop there. It could easily include anyone on any psychiatric meds, then anyone with depression, or anxiety, or even family history of issues.

Using the excuse of "mental health evaluations" you could effectively disarm more than half of the US population. I agree crazy people shouldn't have guns, but the issue is not if crazy people should have guns, it is how do you effectively enforce this is a in REALITY without stripping the rights of millions of others as well. Additionally perhaps instead of treating the symptom of gun violence, maybe we should be treating the USA's crazy person problem instead. The mental health care options in the US are almost nil unless you have the big bucks to afford it, which IMO is one of the primary causes of this issue along with certain types of psychiatric meds.

Evidence simply does not support this.

There is very little attention given to the frequent event of a gun saving a life. It happens almost everyday in America. My favorite this week is the escort who killed a John who attacked her. Turns out the guy was likely a serial killer. If not for a gun she would have died a horrifying death at the hands of a maniac.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/25/women-who-shot-alleged-attacker-may-have-slain-a-serial-killer-police-say/

I believe everyone has the right to own a gun to protect himself.
                                                                           

It just happens that I'm right now sitting in a Starbucks in Texas, about 200 feet from where a shootout occurred about a year ago.  The bad guy tried to jack and steal a car, and the owner was returning to the car.  He had a concealed carry permit and was carrying his weapon.

I'm not going to argue in favor of shooting people dead who steal cars.  I really just don't care.

But everyone should recognize that if Good Guy had not been armed, she would most likely have been shot dead, defenseless......

I think that in places like Texas where the trespassing is a common stuff, the people need a way to protect them self. But if you own a firearm you should keep it in a place where nobody can find it or reach it. In order not to happen many unwanted things

Thanks for the warning, here is corrected sentence: More legal and illegal weapons (in the hands of citizens) means only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

I notice you didn't say more legal guns mean only more violence and insecurity...

It seems to me that it is obvious that countries that do not have strict control of the sale and possession of weapons have more problems with crime and safety.
USA is very good example.
In America, the right to arms is a constitutional right but it is also a country with a lot of crime and murders.
On the other hand their neighbor country Canada has much stricter laws on gun ownership and a lot less crime, and the country is much safer for life.
I'm definitely for very strict gun control.
More guns mean only more violence and insecurity, not vice versa.

Since the people of America and some other countries have the right to guns, if we are living in such a country, it is hard for us to imagine complete slavery, because it is partially our guns that are keeping us free.

It is time to push gun freedom the other way. Push it so that we have more gun freedom rather than less. Why? So that we can gain more freedom in other areas as well. So that we can reduce our servitude to those who have taken away much of our freedom already.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all could be subservient to a wise dictator who would give us everything that we wanted, and who would do everything that we said, and who would protect us from all the dangers of life? Well wake up. There isn't such an animal as that. ALL the dictators want to take our freedoms away. The smart ones do it slowly over time so that we don't see it happening. It's called the destruction of the Bill of Rights.

We all need more and bigger guns, and all the ammo that we can hide away. But more importantly, we need to stand up and take responsibility for our freedom. If we don't, those among us who have dictatorial minds will take as much freedom away from us as they can. They have taken way too much already.

People should simply don't own guns at all , it's too dangerous and will just make chaos everywhere .
A lot of countries don't have gun control and it's the total peace comparing with the other countries

I'm not a fan of any 'hard' gun control, but I do think there should be a few restrictions to reduce the amounts of them that get into the wrong hands, and make sure the people that do own them know how to use them:

• Background check for violent crime
• Mental health evaluation
• Training course complete with range practice
• 7-10 day waiting period

People in the USA will defend their right to own guns literally to their deaths. On its surface this seems senseless and insane, until you realize how much more senseless and insane our government is, and what the costs of allowing it to continue unchecked is. Guns aren't just to protect us from murderers, rapists, and thieves walking the streets. It is too easily forgotten that the government is made up of people too, and people are imperfect.

Imagine how much harder it would have been for Hitler to set up Nazi Germany if the German people remained armed. Disarmament of the general population ALWAYS results in tyranny. The right to bear arms is the one right that is designed to protect all other rights. This is why Americans are so passionate about it, because removing the right to bear arms removes any ability for our nation's people to protect any of their other rights. Rights are meaningless unless you can back them up and take what is rightfully yours.

Part of it has to do with the large numbers of gun owners.

Do you own any property of any kind? What if government came along and made laws to take your property away? Would you be happy about it? Would you be happy if you became less safe because of it?

For example, it has been proven that seat belts in cars save lives. If government made it a law that nobody could have seat belts in their cars, wouldn't at least some people protest?

Government is stealing rights away from people. America is becoming a police state country. Guns are part of the protection... from government. No law enforcement goes into the ghetto unarmed. They might not go in at all, simply because parts of the ghetto are self protected these days... by guns. These ghetto people are not happy about the idea of no protection from government.

Income taxes are increasing. Income taxes are voluntary, but few know how to volunteer out... so, are taxes really voluntary? Aren't taxes really government thievery?

The point? Guns is a big issue because government is becoming the enemy of all people. People had thought government was there to protect them. Guns are the thing that people are falling back on for protection... from government.

Probably because those who want to get rid of gun ownership rights spout silly arguments, about it helping to lower gun crime after the ban. They ignore the simple fact that criminals will still get guns.

I have heard all arguments for and against gun control but why is there such passion on such a large scale in defence of gun ownership rights in USA?

Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

Imagine that there is a small, unofficial community of people who want to protect themselves from a small band of outlaws that are raiding them. So, they get together and form a militia to protect themselves. Everyone contributes time and money and property in some form to the militia effort. And it works.

Now imagine that there are a few people in the community who don't believe that a militia should be formed. Perhaps they don't have anything that can be stolen by the outlaws. Or maybe they simply don't like the way the community is going about forming the militia. Should these guys be forced to contribute to the militia?

If they are NOT forced to contribute, will they be receiving benefits by accident, simply because they live in the area, that they should not receive because they didn't contribute? If they received such benefits, wouldn't they be receiving them unfairly? Unfair to the rest of the community who contributed?

On the other hand, if these guys are forced to contribute by the majority in the community, isn't the community starting to become like the outlaws they are trying to protect themselves from?

The point about guns is, guns are personal property. By denying the rights of people to own and have them, a community is becoming outlaw against the gun owners. If a military or police force enforces a no-gun rule or law, isn't the military or police force becoming like the outlaws by depriving people of their right to property?

Where will it stop with the military or police force? After all, if they have all the guns, how can anyone stop them if they decide to take everything else and make slaves of the people? Isn't this what government really wants to do? Haven't they done it already by taking income taxes that most people don't want to contribute?

Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

Gun control has already gone way too far. Let all the States enact gun freedom like Arizona - open and/or concealed carry without license or permit required. Let government advertise this to the people, suggesting that they all get firearms training, and then get the firearms. With training, we will have real gun control. After all, military or police force people are simply people. The only difference is the training.

The gun issue is not a gun issue. It is far deeper than that.

The issue is about some people dictating to other people how they must live, what property they can have if any, the boundaries of their freedom, etc.

Notice all the anti-terrorism that the government is doing. Homeland Security is supposedly part of anti-terrorism. Wake up, America. If government wanted anti-terrorism, they would arm the people to the hilt and teach them how to use the arms. No terrorist would want anything to do with a country full of armed people.

Homeland Security is there to take the guns away from the people, so that the government will not have any resistance when taking the rest of the peoples' property. It's called making slaves of a free people. Rather, let us become a nation of warriors, neighborhood groups of people protecting each other from everything, including government.

There is no way to control guns through the law, the same way that you can't really prohibit anything through policy and expect usage to decrease to zero.  Those that want to go through the proper legal channels and obtain a licence can do so, but if not, you can purchase firearms illegally with cash.

I think the real problem is when guns are mixed with people that have any type of major mental or psychological issue, especially to those lacking empathy.  Rather than trying to keep guns out of their hands, which I don't think is possible, there needs to be more emphasis on rehabilitating these folks back to having a stable mindset and being emotionally developed.

That being said, I think any firearm should be accompanied by training to use the firearm as well as martial arts training for those in environments of combat, so that pulling out a gun is the last resort.

Back in the beginning times of America, after Columbus found her, and colonists came over here, the only people who owned land in the nations that the colonists came from was the kings. Even the nobles only owned land as the various kings allowed.

In America, the people decided that they were all going to be kings. They fought the kings of other nations - particularly Great Britain - to prove that they were kings. We still hold the position of kings in America today.

Kings own property. Americans can own property because we are all kings. The counterpart of the treaties between European kings among American people is the contract. Americans contract with each other just like the kings of Europe made treaties among and between themselves.

Americans own guns just as other kings own guns... for self-protection.

Time to stop the criminals in American government who want to take our heritage, our kingships, away from us. Time to put down the usurpers who want to take our property. Time to put down those who want to take our guns.