Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 41. (Read 450482 times)
I like about gun control because it can reduce violence and crime because most people who has a gun act like they are the superior to us, who think they can mess with any people
IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
gun ... when a person has a gun he was becoming arrogant especially when he was drunk or intoxicated ... this gun is not a weapon because it is dangerous ... when it blow and when it hit someone may die soon.IMO, people should be given the choice whether whey want to own a fire-arm or not. In places like Texas, where home invasions are very common, the possession of a fire-arm can save many lives. However, the government should make it impossible for people with a criminal record, and those with mental issues from obtaining fire-arms.
gun ... when a person has a gun he was becoming arrogant especially when he was drunk or intoxicated ... this gun is not a weapon because it is dangerous ... when it blow and when it hit someone may die soon. 
It is necessary to make a lot of restrictions on people who are eligible for a weapon, if you have to allow it. It is also worth recalling the punishment of negligent storage of weapons, carrying weapons in a state of intoxication, increasing the minimum age for buying traumatic guns and a ban on the purchase of weapons violators of public order.
Regulation doesn't work for anything except to make people slaves of crooks and government.
It is necessary to make a lot of restrictions on people who are eligible for a weapon, if you have to allow it. It is also worth recalling the punishment of negligent storage of weapons, carrying weapons in a state of intoxication, increasing the minimum age for buying traumatic guns and a ban on the purchase of weapons violators of public order.
TGIF: Real Common Sense on Gun Control
Read more and click the links at https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/daily-featured-articles/tgif-real-common-sense-gun-control/.
Quote from: https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/daily-featured-articles/tgif-real-common-sense-gun-control/
Here's how to judge the pragmatic case for gun control: if the pro-control lobby managed to have each of its favorite restrictions enacted, could we as individuals be more casual about our safety than we are today? The answer clearly is no. So what's the point of the restrictions beyond letting their advocates feel good about themselves?
A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security at all.
Mass shooters have obtained their guns legally, having had no disqualifiers in their records; used guns legally obtained by someone else; or obtained them despite existing laws. Therefore, the controls most commonly called for would not have prevented those massacres. In the latest massacre, the shooter had a disqualifier — a less-than-honorable discharge from the Air Force after a year in the brig for domestic abuse — but the Air Force failed to report that disqualifier to the FBI and so it never got into the database that was checked when the shooter bought guns from licensed dealers. New controls, such expanded background checks, would not have prevented the shooting because the Air Force was already required to report the shooter's conviction to the FBI. Even a ban on rifles with certain features, misleadingly called "assault weapons," would not have prevented the shooting because equally powerful rifles would have been available
Thus the victims of the latest shooter, like the victims of the previous mass shootings, would have been no safer under the sought-after gun-control regime than they were at the time they were murdered.
But this is not the end of the story. Even if those shooters had been unable to obtain their guns as they did, it does not follow that they would have been prevented from committing their monstrous offenses. How many times must it be pointed out that someone who is bent on murder is not likely to be deterred by legal restrictions on the purchase of guns? The gun-control advocates pretend that legal methods are the only way to obtain firearms, but we know that is not true. People have always been able to obtain guns through illegal channels. Gun-running — firearms smuggling and trafficking — is probably as old as the earliest gun restrictions. Guns can be stolen and sold. (There are 300 million of them.) Guns can be made in garages. Guns will eventually be made routinely on 3D printers. Supply responds to demand. Black markets thrive whenever products are prohibited.
But the black market — by definition — is already illegal. So what are gun-controllers to do, make the black market doubly illegal? I don't think that's a solution.
A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security at all.
Mass shooters have obtained their guns legally, having had no disqualifiers in their records; used guns legally obtained by someone else; or obtained them despite existing laws. Therefore, the controls most commonly called for would not have prevented those massacres. In the latest massacre, the shooter had a disqualifier — a less-than-honorable discharge from the Air Force after a year in the brig for domestic abuse — but the Air Force failed to report that disqualifier to the FBI and so it never got into the database that was checked when the shooter bought guns from licensed dealers. New controls, such expanded background checks, would not have prevented the shooting because the Air Force was already required to report the shooter's conviction to the FBI. Even a ban on rifles with certain features, misleadingly called "assault weapons," would not have prevented the shooting because equally powerful rifles would have been available
Thus the victims of the latest shooter, like the victims of the previous mass shootings, would have been no safer under the sought-after gun-control regime than they were at the time they were murdered.
But this is not the end of the story. Even if those shooters had been unable to obtain their guns as they did, it does not follow that they would have been prevented from committing their monstrous offenses. How many times must it be pointed out that someone who is bent on murder is not likely to be deterred by legal restrictions on the purchase of guns? The gun-control advocates pretend that legal methods are the only way to obtain firearms, but we know that is not true. People have always been able to obtain guns through illegal channels. Gun-running — firearms smuggling and trafficking — is probably as old as the earliest gun restrictions. Guns can be stolen and sold. (There are 300 million of them.) Guns can be made in garages. Guns will eventually be made routinely on 3D printers. Supply responds to demand. Black markets thrive whenever products are prohibited.
But the black market — by definition — is already illegal. So what are gun-controllers to do, make the black market doubly illegal? I don't think that's a solution.
Read more and click the links at https://www.libertarianinstitute.org/daily-featured-articles/tgif-real-common-sense-gun-control/.
It is a must to control the use of gun in the community. Due to public safety and ussually to avoid criminality.
Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.
Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?
Update on my recent firearms related killing spree:
I was compelled to shoot a bat last night. I made an effort to get the creature to exit through the sliding glass door as I usually do, but it was uncooperative. So I used up another 22 cal shot-shell. Bats can bite and are one of the chief carriers of rabies in my area. They eat great quantities of mosquitoes so I like to have them around, but not flying around inside of my house.
It is very bad that there are so many guns around. I am for gun control. I think we should start to disarm people, starting from those who are using them more often. So the first one to be disarmed should be the US army, which is the biggest user of weapons in the world. Afterwards we will discuss who must be next.
In my country, in any case can not allow everyone to carry a firearm, because many will use it to attack other people
The thing is most criminals these days are armed with really good guns. So, it would be really inhumane to risk the lives of those police officers in the front line serving our country. They have to be fully equipped with good weapons to defend themselves.
Gun control is very necessary in society, alot of gun'are in wrong hand, they are using it for wrong purposes, instead of using it for what is meet for. So gun control is the way to go, in order to eradicate crime in the society.
I think if it's a weapon that can only hurt but not kill it's okay to have one to protect yourself.
For me gun control is not bad because of course if we are just ordinary civilians, we do not need to possess guns because it is not our duty to protect the people. The people who are in the authority to possess guns are those people who are security guards, military soldiers, policemen, air force, private agents. We as an ordinary citizen, we are not aloud to possess those kinds of armor because if we possess that, we will become very violent because most of the people who can possess guns especially those civilians will become dependent to guns and they always brag and threat the people who will oppose them.
If you are living in a peaceful nation like Singapore or Monaco, then you can do like this. You can leave your security to the law enforcement agencies. Now consider what will be the situation, if you are residing in some inner city ghetto in south-east United States. Every day, there are dozens of home invasions, murders and rapes. Would you still stick to your argument and refuse to get a gun?
I see a lot of posts stating that “in my country we do this, which results in that.” Usually it’s a person from an ethnically homogeneous Western nation with a low to average population comparing their crime statistics to the US. That is literally like the old idiom of apples to oranges. The majority of violent crime in the US, especially gun related crime, is committed by the “urban underclass.” That’s why there are so many cities and specific city neighborhoods that law abiding citizens try to avoid. There are entire cities which were formerly vibrant urban areas but are now completely ruined such as Detroit, Camden, Oakland, Memphis, Gary, etc. On top of that, there are also major sections of almost every large city that are completely crime ridden. Take Chicago for instance. In 2016 alone, 4,331 people were shot and 762 of them died as a result. This is a city that completely banned handguns up until 2010 until it was deemed unconstitutional due to the precedent set by Washington D.C.’s gun ban ruling in 2008.
You can also look at countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela. All 3 have strict gun laws in varying degrees but all 3 have incredibly high gun-related crime. Venezuela even went as far as confiscating guns, surprisingly that made gun related crime rates increase.
It’s probably best not to speak on a topic unless you’ve thoroughly researched it first or experienced it first hand for a considerable amount of time.
You can also look at countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Venezuela. All 3 have strict gun laws in varying degrees but all 3 have incredibly high gun-related crime. Venezuela even went as far as confiscating guns, surprisingly that made gun related crime rates increase.
It’s probably best not to speak on a topic unless you’ve thoroughly researched it first or experienced it first hand for a considerable amount of time.
For me gun control is not bad because of course if we are just ordinary civilians, we do not need to possess guns because it is not our duty to protect the people. The people who are in the authority to possess guns are those people who are security guards, military soldiers, policemen, air force, private agents. We as an ordinary citizen, we are not aloud to possess those kinds of armor because if we possess that, we will become very violent because most of the people who can possess guns especially those civilians will become dependent to guns and they always brag and threat the people who will oppose them.
America seems to be in flustered and in a quandary because they have given themselves more rights than is within the threshold of safety for humans. I think this stems from their belief in the foundation based on the Judo-christian tenets that God has created us all with freewill. Not exactly contending that. I think it is a dangerous trend to think that modern man has the capabilities to be left as a being free to exercise such will.
God wants freedom for us, however there is a limit to which mankind can safely operate without the law that has been written, not on tablets of stone but by the Spirit on the tablet of human heart.
Western civilization has taken liberty beyond the threshold within which man should operate. That's why, even in the midst of tears and blood. There still is a debate on measures that would ordinary have modulated the onslaught of easy access to guns on a society.
It is for liberty that Christ has set you free. Paul said. Yet Jesus, the Christ Himself knowing that too much freedom without limits is inimical to our wellbeing opined "Take my yoke (bond, restraint) and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls".
Whenever a society thinks God unimportant as we see in America's slide in leading the rest of the world astray, it shows in a definite self hurt that lead to an implosion.
I wonder how it feels, living with the knowledge that your next altercation might just lead to a fellow pulling a gun and blowing you straight to oblivion.
God wants freedom for us, however there is a limit to which mankind can safely operate without the law that has been written, not on tablets of stone but by the Spirit on the tablet of human heart.
Western civilization has taken liberty beyond the threshold within which man should operate. That's why, even in the midst of tears and blood. There still is a debate on measures that would ordinary have modulated the onslaught of easy access to guns on a society.
It is for liberty that Christ has set you free. Paul said. Yet Jesus, the Christ Himself knowing that too much freedom without limits is inimical to our wellbeing opined "Take my yoke (bond, restraint) and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart and you will find rest for your souls".
Whenever a society thinks God unimportant as we see in America's slide in leading the rest of the world astray, it shows in a definite self hurt that lead to an implosion.
I wonder how it feels, living with the knowledge that your next altercation might just lead to a fellow pulling a gun and blowing you straight to oblivion.
Video: Trump Says Stricter Gun Laws Would Have Meant 'Hundreds' More Deaths In Texas
Trump Asked if He's Considering 'Extreme Vetting' for People Trying to Buy Guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTI2a-EdxD0
Read more at https://www.prisonplanet.com/video-trump-says-stricter-gun-laws-would-have-meant-hundreds-more-deaths-in-texas.html
President Trump said Tuesday that stricter gun laws would have equated to more deaths in Texas this past weekend, and that ‘extreme vetting’ for purchasing firearms is ‘not going to help’.
Trump, currently on a tour of Asia, answered questions from reporters in Seoul Tuesday on gun control in the US, following the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday.
“The city with the strongest gun laws in our nation is Chicago and Chicago is a disaster, it’s a total disaster,” Trump said.
“Just remember if this man [who fired at the killer] didn’t have a gun or rifle, you’d be talking about a much worse situation in the great state of Texas.” the President added.
Trump, currently on a tour of Asia, answered questions from reporters in Seoul Tuesday on gun control in the US, following the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday.
“The city with the strongest gun laws in our nation is Chicago and Chicago is a disaster, it’s a total disaster,” Trump said.
“Just remember if this man [who fired at the killer] didn’t have a gun or rifle, you’d be talking about a much worse situation in the great state of Texas.” the President added.
Trump Asked if He's Considering 'Extreme Vetting' for People Trying to Buy Guns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTI2a-EdxD0
Read more at https://www.prisonplanet.com/video-trump-says-stricter-gun-laws-would-have-meant-hundreds-more-deaths-in-texas.html
Gun is not a toy, it can kill in a single shot, so I think government should not allow individual to have a private owned gun to avoid conflict and accident shooting.
Jump to: