Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 2. (Read 450417 times)

Ordinary people can address some of societies most vexing problems autonomously by taking just a little bit of responsibility as the chart shows.  Distributed law enforcement so-to-speak.

I think that the above chart shows the major reason that corp/gov is so desperate to get rid of the 2nd amendment.  It's got nothing to do with 'anti-government militia groups' and all that crap (that both sides fool themselves into believing.)  It's about giving socialized constructs a reason and excuse to exist and get funds.

The rejection of centralized authority is one of the central reasons why the gun control issue resonates so strongly with think-they-wanna-be socialists.  Most people in this category are funded and animated by corp/gov through mechanisms that they semi-deliberately don't understand so they tow that party line with extraordinary vigor.

The more power and size law enforcement entities have, the more corrupt they get as a general tenancy.  It works generally the same way in all societies and has throughout history.  In my observation law enforcement works best for society when upstanding citizens and uniformed law enforcement are of appropriate size that they _need_ to rely on one another.  In my area in rural Oregon that dynamic between citizens and the Sheriff's department exists and it works quite well.  Meth-heads are basically identified and they self-limit to a large degree as a survival mechanism.

In another area with which I have some familiarity things go one step farther and there are so-called 'salvage operations.'  That works pretty well too IMHO.  Drives the so-called 'Western Liberals' into fits though.  Probably because if fucks up the strategy of cultivating criminals as a problem/reaction/solution scheme.

That's why they are attempting gun control. They are losing soooo much $money because people are armed. So, they get into government to do something about it. Gun control legislation is the result.

Gun control is a scam in any country. This control is only for good people. The bandits have always continued to possess illegal weapons and the population will be unarmed and unprotected.

I agree with you I think strict control is needed for those who use guns for gun control Because there are many who use it without even knowing it our society faces many threats. For this reason the judiciary has to regulate it through lawyers.

60% of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed.

Guns absolutely ARE strictly controlled. Ask any terrorist shooter. If he wasn't strictly controlling his gun, he would never be able to achieve the number of casualties. Even government officials who are terrorists know this. They give their terrorist police the greatest training (most of the time) regarding how to control their guns. This is why we have so many police brutality websites.

Took my sister a whole day in Phoenix.     

To me, owning guns should be free but strictly controlled. Owner candidates should be tested physiologically hard. There should be zero tolerance for anyone who lacks anger management.

Basically a conversation finisher
Nobody cares about protecting your life and stuff more than thyself.
A government forbids you to posses a personal protection device? You have to change the government because it's idiocy turns you in to a potential victim and a factual slave, that's a fact. True freedom is eternal vigilance and those who propose taking off of you this alertness, are in fact putting you on grave danger. In my opinion, gun control is always a straight way to genocide, at lest history suggests just that and as such, it is highly immoral action of a tyrannical clique that's horribly afraid of you being a free man. 
   

This are the 10 best average response time cities in the US



If there's a mass shooting, you get something like Christchurh where the shooter just kills dozens of people and police is nowhere to be found
His livestream is at least 10 minutes long, the police is called, but he kills some 50 people, exists the building, and then travels to another building and kills more people there. The police don't come in the whole stream (10ish minutes).

But what happened in Whiite Settlement in Texas when a shooting happened?
Shooter shot 2 people before he got shot himself.
Concealed carry Texans took care of him in 10 seconds, not 10 minutes
If the people in the church weren't armed, another Christchurch would happen because it would take the police 10 minutes to arrive and then engage him, he'd probably even have hostages until then if he  had intention to survive or he would already kill some 50-60 people.

Guns are bad when bad people have them. Which they do. So how can one protect themselves? Call the cops?

Yes, but you see what happens next. Since law abiding people won't kill with their guns, except in self defense, what do they do? They legalize abortion so they can kill all they want legally.

The polemic regarding use by civilians is certainly different from that of the army, for civilians it is not used directly to kill but defends itself from harmful acts by paralyzing of course. but the situation can be different if we experience it to the point of endangering our lives, forced to be made to defend ourselves even though ultimately killing. but the main intention is not to kill and I agree with the colleague above about this

No they are not produced for killing.

Where did you get that idea?

In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring one firearm in the house.
It's crime rate fell 89% in 1 year.


https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/Crime-Control-through-the-Private-Use-of-Armed-Force.pdf

The purpose of a knife is cutting. And you can cut people with knives.

There's more murders in cities where there's less legal guns per capita than vice-versa.

Are the Bloods and the Crips going to turn in their guns?
Are their guns registered now?

If firearms are illegal innocent people turn in their firearms and criminals don't. There's more robberies, rapes and murder.

96% of public mass shooting occured in gun free zones

https://crimeresearch.org/2018/06/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/



https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf

Ok but knives are mostly (not special ones) not produced for killing people. They have other purposes. But owning a gun has one purpose. shooting and killing or wounding someone. So not the same thing.

Actually it is far more common for a gun owner to have a gun specifically and expressly for the purpose of NOT killing someone.

If I have to defend my family and my property using a baseball bat, it vastly increases the chances that a criminal will attempt to take advantage of the situation.  And criminals are free to have firearms of course.

If I have a 12 ga shotgun at my disposal to defend my family and property, and it is widely known or suspected, then the odds of needing to engage someone in conflict (and potentially kill them or vice-versa) go WAY down.

I know the dynamic in my state and area (rural Oregon) and it works like a champ.  Find the state on the (unsurprising) chart posted above showing the negative correlation between gun ownership and fatalities.

---

Anyway, the "I might go crazy" argument applies equally to guns, cars, kitchen utensils, etc.  The 'produced for' purpose is not really a logically rational argument in and of itself.  I could help you fix it up a bit if I took a mind to, but I'll leave it as a homework exercise.

If you don't have a handgun or a rifle you still have access to knives, hammers and other blunt&sharp objects.


There's a negative correlation between murder and guns per capita in the US.
Which means less guns per capita = more murders
More guns per capita = less murders.

yeah but the difference is guns are being produced for killing. cars are being produced for transportation. So i dont think it is fair to compare buying a gun with owning a car. they are so different things.