Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 76. (Read 450482 times)

Yes. It would help. Here's how and why.

If the crazy people got guns and started hurting other people, the rest of the people would get guns and get rid of the crazy people. Then there wouldn't be any expense for the rest of us, because the asylums would be empty.

If a family had members who were crazy, and they loved their crazy members, they would make sure their crazies didn't get a hold of guns.



The problem with everyone walking around with guns is, we aren't used to it... like in the days of the old West. We would have to get used to it again. Widespread guns, carried in the open, would breed respect among everyone. Things like racism would disappear. The gun would make everyone equal. Why? The expense would be too great to pick on someone with a gun, without thinking about what you were doing ahead of time.

And you think it would help that every crazy person can get a weapon without problems?
And if you are white and dont look like a wannabe crip member you will get a weapon without ID too....

Atleast do some checks and centralize the laws about gun ownership.

Did you notice that almost every mass shooting occurs in a "Gun Free Zone"?

Those who want to shoot others don't really want their intended victims to shoot back.   

Of course, knives are totaly the weapon of choice if a criminal wants to kill someone, especially in the us.

Duh.

https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

Believe me if a person wants to kill someone he'll do it. The most common murder weapon is a knife. You propose to ban selling knives? In the presence of a gun you have a chance to confront the offender with the knife.

Exactly why the USA has the lowest crime rate in the world.

Just read this forum. Free weapons for all?
How the fuck can you give people who belive in reptile aliens and moon nazis weapons??

But well the US deserves every single mass shootings they had and will have.

I agree with you. There is a large experience in the application of such a law. All the Baltic republics, Moldova. Legal weapons is not dangerous. The more democratic the state the more liberal law on weapons.

I am convinced that the killer or maniac will not kill pristoleta with which you registered. But, if you allow people to buy weapons for self-defense, the crime rate will decrease.

I don't like when people say these statements not knowing the official statistics. Kill with illegal weapons. The legal weapons used only for self-defense. Look at the statistics of legal weapons and then will discuss this topic.

I strongly disagree with the idea citizens to have weapons to their homes under the rationale that will protect themselves and their families. Unfortunately it has proved that this is not true when people with psychological problems or teenagers bloodshed workplaces and schools. The weapons must be held only by professionals (police officers, port authorities and military troops) but also when they demobilize should not be allowed by law to have guns at their homes. If states want to protect their citizens must impose very strict laws for criminals and no let the victims to take the law in their hands.

When you are robbing the cops will not help you. I believe that every person has the right to protect your life and health own weapons. Those who do not want to let hopes for the police.

In my country, the authorities will give guns to the criminals. because criminal have fixed shares for police and other government machinery. I don't think in my country guns can be controlled. unless a good and responsive Government take the charge.

I don't actually know the current gun control law in our country but I heard that those are a bit crazy though the gun related crimes are not even that high. I'm not into the whole owning gun a thing. I believe that guns should only be allowed to be owned by authorities, I mean police etc. But of course other countries maybe different. I couldn't blame them especially that their crime rate is a bit more severe. 

Over here in Texas, all you need is a federal background check and you can buy a gun.  My dad owned some, I've fired them before.  I have perhaps twice in my entire lifetime heard gunfire outside of the firing range, and I don't live in a very wealthy part of the state either; I have no idea what the context of the shots were.  Most people I know own guns, and use them solely for home defense.  Some conceal carry, that requires an extra permit.  My little brother and sister were once held at gunpoint while an obese black man robbed them of their game consoles and games; IIRC the gun wasn't even loaded, and it was performed by a nearby neighbor, so...dead simple to file charges, but paradoxically not so easy to get one's things back.  I don't think they ever got their stuff back.  Naturally the people too incompetent to do that job, are the same ones expected to regulate our guns.  But that was back when we had no guns, and I doubt a couple of kids would be brave enough to use one (though I've seen some who are.)

True gun control--to completely bar guns from the nation, like China does--seems entirely unnecessary, expensive, not to mention a disarmed population can hardly defend itself against political pressure: just look how the Chinese are treated by their government, it ain't fun.  The gun is a very inexpensive way of gaining a whole lot of power over the decisions of life or death; I believe most people aren't criminals, at least not the kind who will kill, and I think those people who don't feel confident with guns will neglect to purchase them; plenty of other things in this world you could put 500$+ towards.  Those who do buy the guns are, more often than not, going to be normal people with no ill intent, who may think guns are cool, and who would certainly rather have one in the event of a criminal act against them than without; some try to claim that the police will suffice but the police aren't going to be able to make split-second decisions while it takes them 15 minutes or more to arrive at your location.

There is a sense of powerlessness when you are without a gun, where you play the odds that, more than likely, your day is going to be just fine, and there will be no incidents at all--this is by far the most common situation for most--but there's always the possibility that things will go wrong, and maybe not against you, but against someone around you, and you'll wish you could do something to stop it from happening but you can't; it doesn't have to be that way, however.

More importantly, however, is the general perception by criminals of the area they are in.  When the to-be criminal knows they will most likely be outnumbered in firepower--or even just run the risk of being shot as an unarmed individual--they will tend to turn away from such activity: everyone considers whether or not a certain action is worth the risk, whether the odds of you getting away with something are in your favor, whether the negative impact of the behavior is outweighed by the gain.  If you know you'll get a gun pointed at you by pulling a knife or gun on a clerk at the corner store, you're probably not going to try it; even the average criminal has a sense of value over his own life.  As the saying goes, an armed society is a polite society.

The major issues I see with gun control:
A. There's always someone who thinks there's not enough gun control
B. There's never fewer regulations
C. Who gets to say who gets the guns

Once there are increased controls on the sale of guns--on top of the controls already in place, don't let anyone tell you Americans have no gun control--there will inevitably be more.  Compromise always shifts us left.  Further, I don't trust the government to always be partial on who should have guns and who shouldn't; it wasn't that long ago the IRS was found to be targeting people of very particular ideological standing points.  Who's to say those who oversee the distribution of gun sales will not bar people on similar grounds?  Consider this line of thought: "Liberals/Conservatives are crazy, therefor unfit to have a gun; liberalism/conservatism is a mental disease."  Surely you see this all the time, depending on where you regularly frequent on the internet.  It's a dangerous game, as is every other time we've given up a little bit of our own governing power to the state; we always think they'll do the better job and then complain when they perform far worse.  But surely this time...

You know, I wonder if feudalism would've happened had the peasants had swords.

The best gun control policy is not to ban the purchase of guns but to regulate it and make policies towards responsible gun handling. The government all around the world must consider to require the civilians to undergo some training and some psychological examinations before they will be able to given a license to purchase and use guns. The problem with people holding guns is that they lack psychological test to determine if they have the tendency to kill people when their temper gets wild.

My latest purchase. 

I agree that the reduction of weapons will do less number of murders. Problem is is that deliberate murder or other crimes rarely committed with registered weapons. So this is not a problem which they say all.

I believe guns should be managed by secrecy rather than regulation. I don't know why people are wanting less guns, when danger comes it'll surely save anybody's life.

Nobody shoots with racism anymore so there's really a solution to making it open again.

Ghost Gunner 2







Read more at https://ghostgunner.net/.

They did the opposite in a small city in Georgia, I believe it was. And the results were that crime all but disappeared.