Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 192. (Read 450482 times)

You were born in the wrong country sonny.  The founding fathers were raving conspiracy theorist gun loons like us.  We've dispensed with some of the outdated beliefs (e.g., only white land-owning males can vote) and kept the things that are timeless (e.g., the 2nd amendment.)  Suck it up.  Nobody is telling you have to carry, and nobody has shot you yet so it seems.  Your idiotic implanted phobia is just that so you are better off keeping it to yourself and not burdening others with it.

To paraphrase Chris Rock about OJ:  "I'm not saying right wing death-squads should have disappeared those people...but I understand."  I don't want to see that happen here and that's where your masters are taking us.  That's why I walked away from the mainstream Left.

Well, technically speaking Sir Isaac Newton decides where the bullet goes. The person holding the gun only gets to decide where it's aimed.

I believe that gun control will not work.First, I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it. Guns themselves can't do anything it is the person with the gun that decides where the bullet goes.

Weak. Anyone can use legal civilian pepperspray or ranged stun gun / tazer to non-lethally take down any size assailant in their home with 15-20 feet range.



This baby will stop a full grown angry bear. There's no need to be throwing deadly bits of metal at each other in 2015. That we've made flinging supersonic steel bits a national pastime is fucking barbaric and shameful, and deeply embarrassing to me personally as an American citizen.

i'm not sure what point you are trying to make. the fact that women might increasingly be becoming gun owners doesn't really have anything to do with what i said.

The image of the redneck with his confederate flag in the back of his F150 being the biggest gun buyer is not flying anymore...


Women fastest growing demographic for gun buyers


A new study by the gun industry’s lobbyist group shows that women are the fastest growing demographic for gun owners and how gun makers and sellers can keep the momentum.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation introduced the study Jan. 21 during its annual convention, the Shooting Hunting Outdoor Trade Show, in Las Vegas.

For years the gun industry, still very much dominated by males, strived to appeal to women, so with the study the NSSF aims to inform retailers and gun makers how to engage women already interested in shooting sports by designing products women want and adopting new selling techniques.

“Anybody can pull a trigger. Anybody can go hunting. We want to expand that and share what we love with everybody,” said Jim Curcuruto, NSSF director of industry research and analysis, and added more gun buyers could also mean more gun voters.

“It will have benefits, obviously, economically for the industry, politically for the industry. You know, gun owners, they’re probably gonna go pro-gun when it’s election time, so the more gun owners they have, the better it is politically for the future,” Curcuruto said.

The study surveyed 1,001 women between 18 and 65 years old who own at least one gun and bought their first firearm within the last three years.

Results show women, mostly between ages 18 and 34, primarily buying guns for protection, spending on average $870 on firearms and more than $400 on accessories.

To put the survey not perspective, 95 percent of women said they tried target shooting, 58 percent tried hunting, 42 percent obtained a concealed carry permit, and 73 percent have taken a training class.

Also, more than 50 percent of the women said they would buy another gun within 12 months.

http://www.guns.com/2015/01/22/women-fastest-growing-demographic-for-gun-buyers/

it's more about the aggregate of violent crime. switching shootings for stabbings isn't really better, is it? so, the question is will it actually prevent violent crime, or simply shootings?

this seems overkill. but tbh, i'm torn on the subject. on one hand, i'm generally for minimal government control. on the other hand, i think the pro-gun culture where i live (u.s.a.) is very destructive and contributes to the significantly higher gun violence here than other places.

i don't have a problem with guns, per se. my problem is with the mass of idiots that worship them and believe they are part of their own identity.

Well there might not be a marked improvement immediately, but it would help in the long run. It certainly can't hurt. No matter how small a margin of shootings are prevented, it'd be worth it.

Absolutely.  There is nothing I own (except my life or that of my family) worth killing anyone over.  My plan for defending my property is to fire a warning shot, then if that doesn't work, run like hell and come back with a more effective way of dealing with the problem.

That said, I am happy that a lot of people will blow some scumbag's face off, or at least claim to be looking forward to such an opportunity.  I've zero doubt that that threat alone has kept a LOT of crime from even being attempted in the first place and has saved a lot of lives.

---

I'll also re-iterate the point that someone tried to make in the up-thread.  Many criminals, and especially ones who've been long term meth-heads which is the drug of choice in my area, are simply not good people that you can have a nice conversation with and show them the error of their ways.  Recently several of them killed another one of their own with a hammer and dumped the body in an alley.  Another set killed their bed-riden aging relative with an OD of meth in order to inherit some property.  Multiple times per year groups of them have a party in a certain place on a certain road and get drunk and amped and stop and harass passer's by.  Even the sheriffs find something they would rather do than to come up and deal with them.  Point is, these are the kinds of people we have to deal with and armed home-owners with neighborhood watches have proven an effective way of doing so.

Never any crimes? Sounds like one of those scandinavian socialist paradise. I want to google the crime rate of your country, its size, legal and illegal immigration data and other statistics so I understand your position better.

Can the neighbor prove the gun does not belong to him and, maybe, was planted by the dude who called the government on him? Or does he go straight to jail?

What is the name of your country?

Thank you.

 

Another thing that gun owners I know try to do is not use their guns. Here are the guys currently working my neighborhood. They have not (so-far) been armed or hurt anyone. I would hate to shoot one of them as I think they are not really that hard as criminals. In fact before this story came out over the weekend I believe I had a beer at the park with these two. We talked in Spanish and some English about the weather and our families. I knew they were criminals. They were covered in gang/prison tats, but they were cool with me and I thought perhaps they had cleaned up their lives a bit.
It was disappointing to realize they were robbing my neighbors. I was also concerned for their lives as most of my neighbors have a gun locked and loaded for defense. So our neighborhood got together and made wanted posters to plaster everywhere. I think that will encourage them to move on. But I'm still worried. A friend and I are going to the park where they hang out and tonight and try to talk some sense into them. I'm willing to help them get away from crime and connect them with resources if they want it. If they keep walking into houses like they are doing it is just a matter of time.  I hope they make the right choice.




http://www.nbc15.com/news/crimetracker/headlines/Police-asking-for-help-identifying-persons-of-interest-in-connection-with-burglary-309114881.html

In my neighborhood, if the neighbors know that you have a gun in your house which it is being banned by government, so they will report you as a threat in the society to authorities, then you will be sentenced. Why you have a gun since the neighbors around you don't and crimes never happened around there.

Pretty much sums it up for me.  Everyone thinks it won't happen to them.  Home invasions and violent attacks happen with regularity every day.

If we could wave the magic wand and criminals wouldn't have guns I'd be all for getting rid of them.  I'm no fan of guns and certainly no 'gun nut', however, in the absence of that pipe dream of eliminating them I'm not going to be left unable to defend my home and family in the unlikely event that some roving asshole(s) decides it's time to make today my lucky day.

I do not live in a high crime area, but still have cameras and motion sensors outside the house to make it difficult if not impossible for someone to gain access without tripping a sensor, and I keep loaded weapons in my home.  I'm no cowboy and absolutely, positively do not want to shoot another human being, but would do so if the only choice was doing so or seeing harm done to my family.

I've got smoke detectors networked, fire extinguishers handy and escape ladders in the 2nd floor bedrooms for similar reasons.  It's not about looking to blow someone's head off, it's about doing whatever possible to prepare for that unlikely, but potentially deadly, possibility.

Detroit woman who admitted killing friend with crock pot during argument over presidential race gets at least 23 years







A Detroit woman who pleaded guilty to fatally beating her friend with a slow cooker during a fight over the 2016 presidential election was sentenced to at least 23 years in jail on Monday.

Tewana Sullivan, 51, who has a history of bipolar disorder, received the recommended term for second-degree murder while mentally ill that she and prosecutors agreed to in plea deal negotiations last month.

Sullivan was declared competent to stand trial and she later admitted she bludgeoned her friend Cheryl Livy, 66, to death with a crock pot in Livy’s home last October.

She said in court that she hadn’t taken her medication that day and her lawyer John McWilliams said she was drunk at the time of the argument over next year’s presidential race.

“One was for one major political party and the other was for the other major political party,” McWilliams said.

Her friend was also brandishing a cooking pot and wouldn’t let her leave the apartment in the Detroit suburb of Livonia when she tried, Sullivan said, according to WKBD-TV. Police officers reportedly found Livy unconscious with the slow cooker’s cord around her neck.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/woman-killed-friend-crock-pot-23-years-article-1.2259385


----------------------------------
... We Need More Regulations & Control...

Nobody ever stated legally owning a gun in your house for self defense was a threat to their entire neighborhood either... Nobody ever said legally owning a gun in your private home would automatically turn you into a mall or bank robber either.

I certainly did not...

 

Wow have you ever heard about someone was killed by an extinguisher? Or someone robbing mall and bank with an extinguisher in his hand maybe? Oh come on, gun is a weapon. Can you imagine what the difference of person face when you pointing a gun, compared when you pointing an extinguisher to him? Nobody ever state an extinguisher as a threat to them. It seems you really want the gun in your house.

Technically every single human suffers from some kind of mental illness now or will later in its adult life. If you are too shy it is a mental illness. Too pushy with people around you? Mental illness... Should we ban someone for owning a gun now if that person is genetically predisposed to develop some kind of mental illness 40 years from now?

The government only knows you are mentally ill if there is a record of it.  Mental illness in this case applies only to those who have been diagnosed as having one.  There are potentially millions of people who meet the criteria for such a diagnosis but have not actually received one.  It's easy to understand how a mentally ill person can legally obtain a firearm in the absence of a diagnosis.  But are we going to place limits on everyone simply because of what they might possibly do?  Here's the thing about freedom -- you have the right to screw up and do something stupid.  So long as freedom exists, people will always have an opportunity to abuse that freedom.  This isn't a bad thing, it's just the nature of freedom.

How to slaughter a lamb or sheep or goat. Professionally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=penw_Ng93oA