Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 43. (Read 450482 times)

sad to note that sometimes we need weapons...unfortunately, we can't speak about those people who don't understand all seriousness when they hold arms in their hands...it is better to have permission and be in normal relations with the law

I have only one answer - gun must be controlled to avoid those tragedies that happen often, when an insane keeps a gun at home, takes it to the store and starts killing people.

You mean the same government which double-taps wedding parties?

Gun control is very important. If you can not control the gun, you can harm so many people. Even your family.
I think the government should train every individual how to use guns properly

Control of firearms in many countries is important , it helps those who are weaker can avoid the pressure. In addition, the gun can help you in the difficult circumstances, life in danger. Guns are a good solution but it will not be good when it falls into the wrong hands

Owning a gun doesn't require any particular discipline. Owning a car requires a whole lot more discipline. The discipline required for either one of them is, disciplining your anger while you have control of either one of them... the car when you are at the wheel... the gun when it is loaded and in your hand.

Simple ownership doesn't require much discipline at all.

When you look at cops, their anger is often are rather uncontrolled while they have a loaded gun in their hands. The only way to protect yourself from their loaded-gun-anger is to become as proficient as they are with guns, and wear a bullet-proof vest.

I am not for gun control but owning a gun requires discipline and if you do not have this, you do not own the right to have a gun..

I do not own a gun or intend to ever buy one but I fully support everyone's right to have one. For me gun control has to do with our already disappearing rights and liberties.

Guns and Ammo for free people!
If it's outlawed to have guns, only outlaws will have guns!
In the 20est century governments killed millions of people, this must never happen again!

Untraceable ghost guns!







Read more at http://cbsaustin.com/news/local/untraceable-ghost-guns.

A Muslim ban is only another way to keep us from having need for our guns, personally. It's simply another form of gun control.

A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, Even Libertarian







Read more at http://www.thelibertyconservative.com/a-muslim-ban-is-logical-moral-even-libertarian/.

I've used one of my guns several times in the last few days to dispatch a couple of rats who had invaded one of my buildings.  This was just my 22 cal rifle and I used shot-shells which work like a charm on rats.  It is nearly impossible to kill more than one rat by any other means that I've found.  They are smart creatures who quickly learn any kind of trap or poison.

One of the most common needs for a firearm is to put large animals out of their misery.  Fairly recently a local donkey got into trouble.  In that case we did have a vet come out and she killed the animal with an injection, but it cost $700 and she was able to come out fairly quickly.  I would have just shot the animal rather than have it suffer and slowly die over 48 hours.  And if I'd known that the creature would have to be put down, I'd have spent $1 on a shell rather than $700 on a visit from the vet.  I would _not_ have taped a knife to a stick and tried to stab the creature to death or whatever 'option' you urban morons might dream up.  Had I not the option of instantly killing it with a shot to the brain, the creature would have died a painful death over the course of a few days.

It is pretty common to see an animal who was hit by a car and is suffering in pain beside the road.  I've seen it on average of probably once per year.  A responsible person will put the animal out of it's misery.  I don't live in a 'rich' area where there is a lot of 'services' who will come out and deal with the problem (e.g., sheriff, animal control, etc.)  The resources just are not there.  I've not had to kill an injured animal on the roadside mostly because so many people carry guns in their cars in my area that someone else has always come along before I needed to perform this duty.  Thankfully.  I would not like to have to perform this duty, but I would rather do it than to think of an animal suffering for as long as it takes to die naturally, especially since scavenger animals usually start in before the animal is totally dead.

I do not really see a reason for keeping guns, unless there are lot of crimes happening and people are keeping it for their safety. To keep it just as a hobby or interests, seems ridiculous. It is not a toy.

Guns are tools. Some are built to kill, some are built for sport (22 target) But at the end of the day its the person that is holding it that should be held liable for what they do, not what they used.

Better enforcement of existing laws would be more effective than new laws.

Our nation is one that values life, and society has a responsibility to protect innocent lives wherever possible. As they now exist, guns are a threat to the general welfare, which the government exists to protect. Handguns and assault weapons are only meant for killing people, and a correlation exists between gun ownership per capita and violent crime.

I think in today's world guns are necessary, there are evil people everywhere who don't mind coming to your home to loot, kill, rape, hurt your loved ones.

Been there, done that.  One gets in a lot more trouble if one uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, and criminals know this.  It worked, and that is why problems spiked in the 1970s when the policy was undertaken and have been declining ever since.

What you get on 'the news' is not a random sample and is not a good basis for making policy decisions, and this is especially the case if you've not carefully monitored the news over many decades.  WRT firearms in the U.S., the news is a particularly poor resource since there is a campaign to demonize firearms and get our society such that the police, military, and paramilitaries forces have a monopoly in the use of force and the mainstream corporate media is a key player in this effort.  Success here will allow more flexibility in future social engineering operations.

Also, it is a directive from the United Nations for the U.S. to 'synchronize' with most of the rest of the world in this use-of-force monopolization so I understand.  As far as I'm concerned, the lack of self-defense capability on the part of a citizenry is often a key element of national disaster.  No thanks.

in my personal opinion the use of firearms must be set properly and precisely because gun is one weapon that is quite deadly.
we must have seen a lot of news about the misuse of firearms in various television media, shootings by teenagers, crossfire between gangs and several cases of armed robbery.
therefore the regulation and control of gun usage must be tightened and regulated in standard law so that there are not many cases of weapon misuse.

does this law stop you from throwing sticks of dynamite?