Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 28. (Read 450548 times)

What good is law enforcement gun control if they don't use it? Any parent with a gun could have helped stop the massacre.

"Shocked And Outraged": Four Broward Deputies Waited Outside School As...







Read more at https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-23/shocked-and-outraged-four-broward-deputies-waited-outside-school-children-were.

How are these documents to be stored and used?

Do you suppose that at the local level there might be only a few degrees of seperation between some worker in county courthouse and a set of local meth-heads, and that information about who has guns and who does not might make it out and around?  I can pretty much promise that that would be the case where I live.

Or should the information be considered 'high security' and only available to those at the highest levels of government?  If so, for what reason might the information be used?  In what circumstances would the information be useful, and to whom?

Perhaps it should be shared with large social media organizations (Twitter, Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc) and the task of coorelating risky individuals should be outsourced to those who already have other data on individuals (known in the industry as 'PII')?  Or perhaps the government should be able to tap into the data collected by these large multi-national corporations in order to run the algorithms?  Which way would you like to see it go?

My opinion to gun control is  to help the securty of one country. only the the low enforcement have right to hold gun unless you have a good reason to have gun or buy gun for protection. not only like toy you buy and no need document.

Actions of armed citizen saved mother, daughter (VIDEO)







Legally Armed Citizen Saves Woman And Her Daughter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6WyBDtrQSo


Read more at http://www.guns.com/2018/02/21/actions-of-armed-citizen-saved-mother-daughter/.

Couldn’t we have homicide control instead of gun control? I mean, let’s make it a crime to kill someone (without legal justification). We could name that crime ‘murder’ and then no law abiding person would kill anyone anymore.

Community sweeps and random searches are not going to achieve anything, and they can cause a lot of inconvenience for the people. On the other hand, I have a feeling that if the issue of illegal fire-arms needs to be countered, then they should be taken care at the source. Most of these guns are coming over the border from Mexico, and if the supply can be stopped there then the crime rate will go down in the United States.

If guns weren't Constitutional, law enforcement and the military couldn't have them.

Besides, the 9th Amendment essentially says that people have all the rights that they had before government was started.

I Dont own a gun
I Dont care about guns
I Dont care if you own a gun

The spectrum of different opinions is mind numbing.  I couldn't ride the fence more about anything else.  Both side have opinions I agree with.

For my opinion MY opinion is do not use guns. Because It is deadly life in our world are only Lent to our God So be careful and don't use these things as fatal, if you protect yourself not to be gun, talking to two each other way in violence for none of your two die

If our country have forcing the law of gun control i think the crime will be minimized at all time most of the criminals are no longer hold the gun, i think if the government will issue the gun license the requirements must be difficult like persons mentality test.

No they are not consitutional. Guns are used primarily for offense. You may have powerful shocker/traumatic gun to protect yourself.  look at all those shootings happened

It is surprisingly common in the U.S. that when their are children who've been trained well and there are guns in the house, it results in death to an intruder or at least the end of a crime in progress and a scumbag in the emergency rooml.  In some fraction it would have been the kid and/or their siblings who ended up dead rather than the home intruder.

I've yet to see a well conducted scientific study which seeks to rigorously understand how many home invasion intrusions simply don't happen at all because the perp doesn't want to get shot by a law abiding homeowner (or his wife or kids.)  I suspect it is a lot.  Circumstantial evidence of this is that where there are the highest barriers for law abiding citizens to own guns (New York, Chicago, etc), the rates of violence and gun related deaths tend to be through the roof.  Conversely, areas where nearly every home has guns, like my area, the rates of confrontational crime are remarkably low.

Every kind of weapon should be used for sake of security to overcome dangerous situation and its wrong used may cause of killing innocent peoples.There should be strict reforms for its issuance on government level.

I don't like guns nor do I support having them in the house. The owner may be concius enough to use it wisely, but if there are children in the home it can get dangerous. A year ago one school friend used it to kill himself. Who knows if he would have done it by a more painful way. Where there are guns there is death.

All illegal guns, and anything else which is illegal for that matter, already are 'confiscated' by the authorities here in the U.S. when discovered.  Probably it is the same in pretty much all countries.

Perhaps you mean that the authorities should start taking more pro-active steps...in order to 'save the children' of course.  Doing community sweeps and random searches of people's property to look for contraband (as was practiced for in the Boston Marathon bombing hoax?)  Scanning the data produced by 'smart devices' to find instances of contraband and performing 'parallel constructions' in order to justify take affirmative action?

You'd probably not have to look to hard to find 'leaders' who would love to take a more proactive role and implement operations as outlined above.

Gun control is a term that refers to the law that regulate the ownership of firearms.So that means  owning  a gun has a legality. It is very useful for the safety of the people . It may also prevent incidents that may occur.

You are just plain ignorant. Take a list of the top 10 countries with the highest crime-rate. I am sure that the vast majority of the nations will be having very strict gun-laws. So it is not about prohibiting the legal guns. If you want to reduce the crime rate, then you should start confiscating the illegal fire-arms which are floating around.

Yes i support gun control, imagine the consequences of gun violence are more pervasive and effect entire community family, children's witnessing an act of violence traumatized and can erupt aggressiveness and violence in their behavior..

Yes! We should have a very strict gun control with the recent shootings in schools. I mean countries like japan and korea has insane gun control and logically has very low gun incidents. guns are tools made for protection. These same tools are used to intimidate and used for crimes. Let's put into mind that humans kill people not guns. We should also have police visibility and strict enforcement of the law therefore guns will not be needed anymore

After a year-ish hiatus, the 'active shooter' false flag psy-ops are back with a vengeance and the POTUS is right back out front-and-center boo-hooing about the 'loss of life' and promising to 'take steps to address the problem.'  Trump's stage has a slightly different flavor than did Obama's.  The designers of Trump's stage make the scene look like an Israeli flag, and they had 'Sheriff Israel' quoting the Talmud (or trying to.)

There are certain things which are high priorities for 'the Jews' here in the U.S.  One is getting rid of the 2nd amendment.  Another is forced vaccinations.  I personally suspect that this is related to setting up for the eventual settlement of the 20 trillion + in fiat debt.  In that respect these priorities make sense to me;  Joe Sixpack is going to have different ideas about how the settlement should be done than will the bond holders, and the bond holders would be better served if Joe Sixpack is dis-armed and preoccupied dealing with widespread mental and physical issues within his society when the shit hits the fan.

In scanning the news, I see that 'they' are trying mightily to make a certain video go viral.  The vid is a 'red blooded American' destroying his AR-15 with a grinder so it is never used to 'hurt the children.'  The dude is a grizzled 60-something white male which is exactly the target stereotype.  What a pathetic and obvious scam!

I hope someone makes a take-off vid where a 'red blooded American'  (or better, a 'former Liberal') who has him/herself one of those dedicated milling machines which make AR-15 receivers starts pumping them out so that fewer people 'find themselves under threat and have no defense.'

I personally don't own one of the mills...yet (or an AR-15...yet) but I'm tempted to buy one and start cranking out free receivers just as a political statement.

Generally speaking I lost interest in military carbines when I got out of the service and don't give two shits about them.  Even without having experienced one, I can say with pretty good certainty that a 'bump stock' is a joke in terms of any sort of combat effectiveness.  When I was in the military even a trained soldier with an M-16 was better off with three-round-burst than full auto, and having the stupid thing slamming against your arm in order to fire is absurd.  Even in single-shot mode I could empty a clip pretty effectively in a matter of seconds, and with better results than having something bumping my arm, and I was not even expert rated.