Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 58. (Read 450482 times)

Achieving this is not currently practical economically or otherwise.

A quick peek at Google shows 7.7/1000 restraining orders alone (U.S.).  Usually restraining orders are taken out by a female when there are problems with a violent and unpredictable former male partner, and often enough the restrainee violates the order.  Considering the population (well North of 300,000,000 here) protecting these people alone with state provided physical security is completely out of the question.

What the state can do, or at least will soon be able to do, would be to fit all citizens with biometric tracking devices.  These devices could be configured to detect behavior which constitutes a security risk and modifies such behavior in real time.  I've no doubt that many people in leadership positions would welcome such a thing (for all but themselves), and I would guess that many people would consider that so outfiting all citizens (including themselves) in the interest of security would be worth the theoretical problems which could crop up.

Of course, in some situations (like mine) threats from wild animals and other rural duties are the primary reason I 'keep and bear arms' so even if the threat from my fellow humans (especially those with a weakness for methamphetamines) were non-existent I would still have need for firearms.

I personally dont like the idea of owning a gun illegaly unless if you could comply this law .Some of the reason why people buy gun because of security purposes which they are force to buy it.I think the government must provide security to its citizen of the society so that it will lessen owning illegal gun and less shooting incident would happen.

Remember the rest of my post, the part you deleted? My response was regarding defending yourself. Waving your illegal gun around in the faces of the authorities isn't defending yourself. Then what is? Doing whatever it takes to defend yourself.

Your defense is already partially lost if you live where you can't have guns. And it isn't a gun thing. It is a property thing. If they can dictate to you what property you can have and what you can't, then you are their property.

Remember. It's about defending yourself. You will need to figure out what to do that works.

It is not that easy. Illegal guns are available easily, but if the authorities came to know about it, then they will arrest you. Normally people get 6-7 years behind bars for possession of illegal guns.

Florida Sheriff: 'Get a Concealed Firearms License and Carry It'







Read more and click the links at https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/06/no_author/get-gun-fight-back/.

GUNs and poses
Meet the one man army who owns more than 3,000 weapons...







Read more and see loads more pics at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3883930/most-armed-man-america-dragon-mel-bernstein-colorado-guns/.

This is wrong thinking. Rather than people being allowed to defend themselves, they SHOULD defend themselves.

Nobody is allowing or disallowing people. If people don't defend themselves, it is each person disallowing himself.

You don't ask somebody if you have permission to defend yourself. You simply get up and do it. Get your gun and defend yourself.

People should be allowed to defend themselves. Else it will be like the case in my country, where all the criminals own guns and the common people doesn't have means to defend themselves. Guns are not banned, but the bureaucratic hassles make them almost impossible to obtain. One of my relatives tried for a gun license for almost 3 years, before giving up.

We should have background checks, there's no reason not to have this at least

Guns don't kill people, people do

Here in my country (Greece) there are not  uncontrolled use of weapons (except some villages) but there are always people that can find and use such a thing.It would be good for humanity people to not use one signle weapon, but there were invented and since then every country and people generally want them for safety and attack of course.At least the weapon market should be more strict and limited because there are many innocent victims in coutries like America for example.

Interestingly, the principle is the same for civilian criminals and non-criminals alike.  The government has no realistic way to provide security for run-of-the-mill civilian criminals of the violent type, and thus this group has 'no choice' but to provide this service for themselves.  The result is that criminalizing firearms for the purposes of controlling criminal access to them is mostly pissing into the wind.

What the U.S. government did do back in the 1980s was the common sense thing.  They made the penalties for use of firearms in the commission of a crime very high.  The effect was that criminals use guns more among themselves for their own purposes, but tend to try not to use them in the commission of a crime against non-criminal citizens.  This is why gun problems here in the U.S. have been on the decline for most of my life.

The moral of the story is that it is possible for the government to make good decisions and implement policy on them effectively when they wish to.  When they are pissing up our leg and fabricating a non-problem in order to achieve a different objective (which is fairly common) then the results tend to be disastrous for the common citizen.

If the government can provide security to its citizens, then there is no need for guns. But as of now, most of the governments can't do that. Either they are unable to provide security for the civilians, or they are not interested in doing the same. So the civilians have no option other than defending themselves using legally available firearms.

LOL on the crayfish thing.  I'd not heard that one, and have had a life-long fascination with the creatures.

I generally agree with Palmerson.  Very few normal humans would leverage their 2nd amendments rights in bona-fide action against the so-called 'powers that be'  unless backed into a corner.  It is thus fairly safe for said powers to engage in abusive practices to a limited degree.  Going much beyond that introduces a bunch of unknowns in terms of costs and risks.  In shear fire-power I don't doubt that TPTB could effectively harness the powers of state in a paramilitary arsenal with the ability to win, but the costs and end result of this could be great and a win not really worth having.

I am pretty well convinced at this point that the main driving force behind efforts to roll-back the U.S.'s 2nd are people who are thinking as I am and have described above.  Of course 9/10ths (or more) of the proponents of attacks on the 2nd really do want to 'save the children from gun violence' and such.  For over one hundred years the technical term for such people is 'useful idiot'.

If someone thinks they are going to be a Rambo Jr., note that this is exactly what TPTB would like to have happen (on an individual case-by-case basis.)  The operation will be quick and easy, and the paramilitaries will have fun with their new weapons systems.

Beyond that, if anyone has flapped their gums on-line about becoming Rambo Jr., that information is logged.  In planning operations this database entry could provide justification to show up on day one fully SWAT equipped.  Just sayin'.

A very good question on the legalization of weapons. I have already met many times over the information that many countries are raising this topic. But I can not understand why the region so much hinders this. The government in all ways decides to get rid of weapons in the hands of a common citizen.

This is the standard error of a person who doesn't recognize a Rambo when he sees one.

This is the standard error of a man who has no experience of handling weapons. You probably think that having a gun you will immediately be Rambo, but it's not. Prestupnie too can have guns and they can be more. The weapon is not the way to destroy the bandits, and the opportunity to win time to escape and save his life.

GET THEM REVENUERS WHO STEAL YOUR MONETARIZED PROPERTY.    

But I would not mind if I allowed the state to store and use its own unstable weapons. The fact is that anyone who would like to encroach on my rights and freedom, I would show Where the crayfish winter, would drink a couple of bullets between the eyes.

One more reason why we all need bigger and more powerful guns!

To Ted Cruz: Further Militarizing Mexico's Drug War Is a Horrible Idea







Read more at http://original.antiwar.com/Brian_Saady/2017/06/21/ted-cruz-militarizing-mexicos-drug-war-horrible-idea/.