Gun control is fine for me but we should always remember to bring something for self defense,
Since there are plenty of criminals out there and we should really be careful about going out.
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 60. (Read 450471 times)
Taking away the rights to legally own guns hurts the poorer population more. Usually the crimes happen in the poorer neighborhoods due to the culture of violence drugs brings out.
When people are not allowed to legally have guns the thing that happens is that the criminals still have them. When all the criminals have them and you don't, eventually your neighborhood is overrun with criminals and becomes more and more problematic.
When people are not allowed to legally have guns the thing that happens is that the criminals still have them. When all the criminals have them and you don't, eventually your neighborhood is overrun with criminals and becomes more and more problematic.
This is a very US centric view because in most of the world poor people can't afford to own guns. Someone earning a couple dollars a day will never have the money to buy a gun.
Gun control is very complicated argument. Well guns are made to hurt or kill for protecting yourself or your love obes in danger but it can also use for crimes. I think gun control is a good idea so that only the ones who really needs it gets a gun. It is GUN CONTROL not GUN BAN. Its differrent, right?
There is definitely a difference between the two, Gun control will ensure that only those with mental and sound mind will be able to get access to a gun and not anyone who wishes to own one.
I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?
It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.
People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.
A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?
They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.
If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.
The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.
You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend.
Mutually assured destruction.
There are other factors as well, such as:
-The fact that people relaxing at home don't tend to be holding guns so an attacker there can shoot properly;
-The fact that in some particular events, such as in the Ariana Grande concert in the UK, it would be suspicious for people to bring in guns due to the fact that it would be uncomfortable for them to do so;
-The fact that people in an unstable mental state are very likely to obtain guns in the US, whereas in the London bridge attack in the UK the attackers didn't even have guns.
"Mutually assured destruction" can work between nations sometimes, but individuals are much more complex than that.
Gort (1951), the only form of gun control that might work. But don't trust those who say that they have achieved Gort-like perfection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6iF5sINVns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsNtti1XZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9phuyRknPw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6iF5sINVns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASsNtti1XZs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9phuyRknPw
Taking away the rights to legally own guns hurts the poorer population more. Usually the crimes happen in the poorer neighborhoods due to the culture of violence drugs brings out.
When people are not allowed to legally have guns the thing that happens is that the criminals still have them. When all the criminals have them and you don't, eventually your neighborhood is overrun with criminals and becomes more and more problematic.
When people are not allowed to legally have guns the thing that happens is that the criminals still have them. When all the criminals have them and you don't, eventually your neighborhood is overrun with criminals and becomes more and more problematic.
Gun control is just like any other control. It is people control. If you can control people, you can use their labor to advance your lifestyle, and make you feel powerful. Power is intoxicating... like a drug.
Gun control isn't gun control. Rather, it is people control.
Gun control isn't gun control. Rather, it is people control.
Gun control is very complicated argument. Well guns are made to hurt or kill for protecting yourself or your love obes in danger but it can also use for crimes. I think gun control is a good idea so that only the ones who really needs it gets a gun. It is GUN CONTROL not GUN BAN. Its differrent, right?
Nowadays, there is not much difference between "gun control" and "gun ban". For example, I live in a country where it is practically impossible to purchase a gun. Getting a license and purchasing a fire-arm involves a lot of bureaucratic headache and can waste a lot of your time and effort. Even if you manage to get a gun license in the end, getting the ammo is another big headache.
Would i sound repetitive if i tell is a strategy from government to take control over people? lol
Gun control is very complicated argument. Well guns are made to hurt or kill for protecting yourself or your love obes in danger but it can also use for crimes. I think gun control is a good idea so that only the ones who really needs it gets a gun. It is GUN CONTROL not GUN BAN. Its differrent, right?
I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?
It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.
People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.
A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?
They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.
If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.
The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.
You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend.
Mutually assured destruction.
Indeed assassin (who will get his weapon regardless of laws) might still act, but common folk? No.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
Tell that to the people in the ghettos of America.
This is a good example of how 2 opposing viewpoints are neither right or wrong. They are just different based on different perspectives.
Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.
Incorrect on all counts. The Paris shootings alone prove your statements are false. Criminals don't give a shit about the law.
Mass shooting in us schools vs europe schools.
USA wins easily.
For that reason us schools look like high security prisons.
Lol
Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.
When the crazy man had the idea to kill someone he can do it with a knife, ax, or just a baseball bat. When people have guns you always have a chance if not you then someone will intercede for you. Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.
Incorrect on all counts. The Paris shootings alone prove your statements are false. Criminals don't give a shit about the law.
Right. Gun control doesn't have much if anything to do with the criminals. Or, actually it does. The controllers ARE the criminals. So, gun control is a method to arm them more effectively.
Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.
Incorrect on all counts. The Paris shootings alone prove your statements are false. Criminals don't give a shit about the law.
Having gun control is good for the safety of the people of a country. Supporting gun control is equivalent to supporting the safety of your loved ones. Without gun control, any time, anyone may lose his proper thinking and may start grabbing guns and randomly shoot at people. Gun control will also prevent school shootings from happening again.
Gun control is Legal creation for people who have several types of firearms. Arms control for safety issues for private owners and use of criminal justice and law
I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?
You are perfectly correct.
Also in United States only some responsibility is held by federal government, alot of laws are therefore set down by local politicians within states. It is far more just, than collective rule of single group of people over the entire nations.
If democrats in California hate guns, cars and electricity - they can ban it all, but only for themselves. Others might not have such problems and keep them.
I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?
It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.
People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.
A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?
They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.
If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.
The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.
You are completely disregarding effects of psychology, friend.
Mutually assured destruction.
Indeed assasin (who will get his weapon regardless of laws) might still act, but common folk? No.
An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Beyond This Horizon
I envy the Americans. The right to arms is a symbol of a free society. I don't understand how one country can have different laws and why some cities are forbidden to carry weapons. By the way in Washington, guns are banned and that this has prevented today's shooting?
It wouldn't have mattered. If John walks into a room with a gun with the intent of killing Mike, John is going to succeed. Bill might be standing right beside Mike with his own gun, but unless he's a mind reader, he's not going to stop John from killing Mike.
People think that having a gun will prevent someone else with a gun from committing a murder. As if they also think they are always going to be ready to shoot someone in the second, literally, that it would take to stop someone from shooting a gun that they are planned on doing in advance.
A person with a gun with the intent of shooting someone else with a gun who has murder planned will always succeed because their action will always be proactive. The bad guy, John, is being proactive. Mike is being retroactive, he is acting AFTER the fact, and the proactive individual will always win that fight. Always. The response to an action will never be faster than the original action. How could it be?
They taught us that in hand to hand combat training in the U.S. military in 1982.
If you don't believe me, watch any old footage of things like John Kennedy getting shot. Or Jack. Or Reagan. Or Oswald. Do you think the security detail surrounding these people did NOT have guns? Of course they did and they were more trained and qualified to use them than the assassins. Did it stop the assassins? No. And it's for the reason I stated above.
The people who try to convince you that guns are a crime deterrant and throw stats in your face are not looking at the reality of the situation. Gunsa are made for one purpose and one purpose only. To kill. That's their job and, in the right hands, they do their job quite well. To think that legalizing something that is meant to kill will stop killings is, well, it's kind of a retarded viewpoint. It's counter-intuitive, but people buy into it because of their emotions and that word "Freedom" they like to throw around.
Jump to: