Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 188. (Read 450551 times)

IMO, Gun control will not reduce or stop crime. is all back to Your personality,mentality you must know what you must do in not good situation

I don't think a viable solution to gun control can ever be reached simply by looking at gun statistics, e.g. by controlling or various SES or demographic factors that seem like they should be controlled for because they 'look nice,' and then seeing how certain other variables such as gun ownership, mental illness, etc. relates to gun deaths and violence.

This seems to be missing the bigger picture.  As far as I'm aware, there are no studies that examine and control for govenment controlin general.  Government control is not only a mediating factor of gun control and gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths and violence, and not only does it mediate all of the variables which are controlled for in various studies, but its overarching implications are vast in terms of its effects on human behavior.

Think about it -- government control in general contributes to a cultureof government-controlled societies.  Things such as government-controlled education (telling people what is appropriate to learn), economics (setting a standard for societal contribution), food, drugs, and medicine (setting a standard for 'appropriate' self-care), etc. all have a profound effect on human behavior.  It's my belief that government control encourages gun violence and violence in general because it places constraints upon, and therefore is at odds with, human nature.  Consequently, even if more stringent gun control measures were put in place, this does not reduce the overall detriment to people in terms of government control in general, but rather adds to it.  But really, how would we know?  

Basically, it's my hypothesis that most violence (and probably mental illness) is a result of an ongoing conflict between government (tending towards control) and human nature (tending toward freedom).  Adding additional constraints will only compound the problem in a much more general sense.  I think it's a myth that people would be at each other's throats in the absence of government.  In the total absence of structure, maybe -- but structure and order does not necessarily equate to governments or government control.

I don't think a viable solution to gun control can ever be reached simply by looking at gun statistics, e.g. by controlling or various SES or demographic factors that seem like they should be controlled for because they 'look nice,' and then seeing how certain other variables such as gun ownership, mental illness, etc. relates to gun deaths and violence.

This seems to be missing the bigger picture.  As far as I'm aware, there are no studies that examine and control for govenment control[i/] in general.  Government control is not only a mediating factor of gun control and gun ownership as it relates to gun deaths and violence, and not only does it mediate all of the variables which are controlled for in various studies, but it's overarching implications are vast in terms of its effects on human behavior.

Think about it -- government control in general contributes to a culture[i/] of government-controlled societies.  Things such as government-controlled education (telling people what is appropriate to learn), economics (setting a standard for societal contribution), food, drugs, and medicine (setting a standard for 'appropriate' self-care), etc. all have a profound effect on human behavior.  It's my belief that government control encourages gun violence and violence in general because it places constraints upon, and therefore is at odds with, human nature.  Consequently, even if more stringent gun control measures were put in

I agree something was off with Sandy Hook. This video shows this poor child wanting to get away, not talk, etc, but you can see the father puts his arms around her to keep her still, and her mother grabs her husband's arm to force it down upon the child on live tv. It's creepy.

However, to say we need to use biometrics (that still won't stop the people who have illegal guns already and in the future) and "mental health surveillance", is totalitarian and is going to be abused, no doubt about it. Mental health surveillance?

This video shows that they want to go after the people "most likely to be radicalized", young people who are alienated, don't get a job, lost their girlfriend, family doesn't feel happy here. Who's deciding what the right mental health is? Some people believe Christians to not be in the right mental state because they believe homosexuality is a sin. What if they are now gone after because they don't have the "right mental health"?

Yes, in a way.  For whatever reason, independent researchers took a strong interest in the Sandy Hook incident and did a lot of good work on it.  Of course a lot of people (some probably shills and some probably not) did a lot of lower quality work.  By the two year mark some very convincing material has been produced which leaves very little doubt that what Sandy Hook was was a FEMA 'capstone' drill passed off as a live event.

I suggest as the most important of these, http://mediasolidarity.com/ 'We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook' as the most important of these.  Sofia Smallstorm's presentation or Klein's 'redux' of it is also very good.  

Being fairly convinced that Sandy Hook was a psychological operation (legal to execute against domestic populations via the 2012 national defense authorization act which effectively repealed the 1948 Smith-Mundt act) I look with interest at each of these events.  The main thrust of each is to mute the effect of the 2nd amendment, but each also seems to have a few secondary components thrown in.  In the case of Sandy Hook it seemed to involve mental health and pharmaceutics.  In this case, after a skim of how the story was portrayed, I identified the aformentioned items.

People must have the right to protect themselves. So the right to have weapons at home with permission is the right thing. In my country this is not allowed but I would like that it would be possible. Maybe one day my government will read this my post and will think about this. 

Are you being serious?

We also need real justice. You hurt someone by breaking his arm... your arm is broken, plus you need to pay to make him well. You kill someone... you are executed, after you have been forced to pay off his family.

This doesn't include accidents that are truly accidents. These would be handled differently.

A theater shooter would act differently if he knew he was going to become a literal slave to pay off anyone he killed or harmed, before the same thing was done to him that he did to others.

Japan presumably?  In terms of safety to your brothers and sisters and what little farmland you have, I'd say you should be more worried about who holds the keys to the nuclear power plants.

Gun control is the way governments assure themselves that they have control over the people to keep the people in slavery.

This 'shooter' used fake ID's from time to time and had a bunch of wigs.  He also changed his licence plate.  Clearly we also need better bio-metric ID and tracking in cars (and, as always, more gun control and mental health surveillance.)  I wonder how many millions of dollars the 'victim's' families and the cops will be receiving from this one in order to assist in their 'healing'.

Gun is very restrict on my country. Nobody able to hold a gun without any valid license. If someone still want to do it, we have right to punish him/her into jail. I agree with that since when gun were being hold by criminals, our life are being at risk.
IMO, gun only for law enforcer not for civilian

People are used to acting without guns. In order for there to be safety, things need to be changed gradually. People need to be required to wear guns when off their personal property. But it hast to be made to happen slowly so that folks get used to it.

Places like theaters need lock boxes where weapons are required to be locked in for folks to gain entry.

Anti-gun laws don't take guns away from anyone except the law abiding people, who wouldn't have shot anyone in a theater anyway.

No gun control wont prevent that, but if I was unarmed I'd rather be attacked with a knife where I'd have a good chance of fighting off my attacker then be attacked with a gun.

The criminals with illegal guns will still have ways of getting them. I literally just read a comment one minute ago... "So what about the family of five who were stabbed to death yesterday? Is gun control gonna prevent that?"

After seeing what happened last night at the movie theater in Lafayette I'm starting to believe that more gun control may be just what the doctor ordered. Watching the news everyone is talking about if more people carried guns then this type of incident wont happen as much. But picture this. Fifty people are watching a loud action packed movie then one guy gets up and start spraying the place. Now Imagine if twenty five of those thirty people had guns and they all drew their weapons to shoot the shooter. Now Twenty six people have guns in a dark movie theater and are shooting it out.

No matter how you slice that its an ugly ending. You need to worry about ricochet for the dozens of bullets, cross fire and what if someone "got to the party late" and took one of the good guys to be a bad guy. Oh my god it would be a disaster. I think I'll start taking the position that more gun control is needed from here on in.

Even the children have squirt guns.   

Gun control has to do with turning your guns on everyone who has a different opinion about your idea of gun control.

 

Exactly. Check this table:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

The gun ownership rates in every single one out of the top 10 cities on that list is less than that in the United States. For example, the gun ownership rate in Honduras is 6 per 100, while that in the US is 89 per 100.

I support that civilians should be allowed to have fire-arms in their homes so long as that person has a license. "Guns are a tool." Guns don't kill people... People kill people