Gun control, whats your opinion

Definite sig spot.

Gun control is a great thing. If you can not control your firearm, how do you ever expect to hit the target.

I'm from Canada. I think you guys problem with guns is that you buy guns for protection, not for sport. here in canada there are tons of people who go hunting, etc just like in the states. But we dont sleep with a gun under our pillow... its scarey how scared you guys are of your neighbors.


(I just watched bowling for columbine lol)

Can't own a gun here, sucks that our government dont trust the public with the right to own arms, but then, with this being England - i cant blame them

First thing a tolitarian regime looking for changes does is ban firearms...

I think gun control is a good thing.

I'm not scared of my neighbor. What the hell are you talking about?

The only place I would actually be scared of is a very high gang activity area for reasons that are pretty obvious.

I'm from Colorado. It took less than 20 minutes to go through a background check and guy a gun. However, the nearest range is like 2 hours away. Totally retarded.

And in regard to guns and gun violence: 1. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. If it were any different, it'd be like blaming religion for those who murder in the name of god. Unfortunately, there are too many stupid / bad / ignorant / etc people, so there has to be some sore of better control on who can get guns and who can't. What that control is / entails, I have no clue.

I'm all for gun ownership... but not AKs and AR-15s. I mean, who's kidding who?

Bowling for Columbine is a bunch of BS. Its an interesting watch but he just shows what he wants to show as every other movie. Everyone should have the right to own a firearm for protection or sport. Won't stop violence....the majority of violent acts are with unregistered guns so whats the point? And the whole thing about that movie is does he show any statistics about race and violence? Please tell me how many if the minoritites were involved these gun murder cases. Not being racisist at all but if you born in a poor neighborhood and you have something that looks enticing you will take it and alot of the poorer neighborhoods consist of the minorites. Also how many illegal immigrants enter canada and others of that nature that come to canada for a better life...I could be wrong but I would think not as many as in the US.

In the words of the president of the NRA, Charlton Heston

"There are no good guns. There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.?

Bowling for Columbine, as with all Michael Moore movies, is propoganda bullshit that he uses to help fulfill his own agenda, fuck that bitch.

I view gun ownership as a HUMAN RIGHTS issue...


unless the government is going to issue myself and my family a personal 24/7 security gaurd that is armed...


not like I live in the hood, BUT, if If IF someone ever came banging on my door in some psychotic state wanting to physically injure or kill myself or my family you BET YOUR ASS I don't want to have to wait 20 minutes for the cops to show up to see / chance it that the freak couldn't get in and do what he/she wanted to....esp if THEY are armed...

criminals usually don't give a shit about laws and will be armed anyways...





I look at these as basic human necessities:

1) to feed myself & family (may require a gun)
2) to shelter myself & family
3) to clothe myself and family
4) to PROTECT myself and family (may require a gun)




doesn't get much more basic than that...




as long as violence is part of human nature then the ability to protect oneself is a necessary evil :/

And why are you glad, because its part of the American *cough* freedom thing you guys are so proud off?

Having freedom has nothing to do with being free to own a gun. You guys seem to mix things up.

Youre also not free, like i mentioned before, to own cocaine. Yet you find that totally acceptable.

Cocaine is bad right. Well just as bad as guns. The "responsible" user wont have any problems using it his whole live. Just too many people think they are responsible but arent, exact same deal with guns.

Forgive Battuss --

He's soon to be living under Islamic law.

How come every pro fun American says he needs it to protect himself yet in a country like Holland you wont hear anybody saying that except for some criminals?

Why the difference in mentality?

Let me answer it, your gun freedom is a fundamental problem, you guys need to protect yourself from other people with guns. You cant protect yourself from a gun with a knife so you need a gun as well.

?Gun control? is a term that people use often, sometimes without even thinking about what it really means. The fact that this term has become a flash point in political debates does nothing to help the general public understand what it really means to them. ?Gun control encompasses a broad range of legislative measures which place various restrictions on the acquisition, possession, use, sale and production of firearms?(Robin, 11). The basic argument that gun control advocates make is that guns are dangerous and cause crime; therefore guns should be controlled or outlawed completely. Unfortunately to the uninformed general public that argument is very persuasive and seems to provide a simple answer to reducing crime and deaths. What the general public does not realize is that the issue of gun control is not that simple and actually has direct repercussions that can affect everyone in our society beyond just the simple idea of controlling guns. Gun control advocates tend to ignore or minimalize the facts that show gun control does not reduce crime or deaths, but instead reduces Americans constitutionally protected rights as citizens. The fact that gun control simply does not work is a statistical fact that can be proven and even our founding fathers realized that the right to defend oneself was important and the government should not limit that right.
The fact that gun control is a bad idea might not make a lot of sense on the surface. However when you consider the statistics that show gun control does not reduce crime and in some cases crime increases then gun control is obviously not doing what advocates claim. Consider the idea of gun control from the perspective of a criminal, if you know that your potential victim cannot legally own a gun then you have much less to fear from that victim attempting to defend him or herself. Many times, the threat of self-defense with a firearm will stop criminals before a crime is committed or even mid-way into a crime (Lott, Bias against guns, 10). Some people might argue that instead of reducing gun control there needs to be more police to help manage crime. While this is certainly a good idea one must also consider the potentially huge increase in taxes as the government attempts to pay for the added police protection. Even then surveys of convicted felons in America concluded that during break-ins they are more greatly concerned with coming across armed victims, than encountering officers of the law (Lott, Bias against guns, 140). So even with more police the deterrent is not as great as if the homeowner could own a gun. Gun control advocates claim that guns make killing easier and more guns mean more murders but historically statistics show the opposite affect. ?Our article?s findings include such facts that the homicide rate decreased 27.1 percent over the 25 year period 1973-94 despite increases of 160 percent in the number of civilian handguns and of 103 percent in guns of all kinds.? (Kates, qtd. in Cothran, 27) So while the percentage of gun ownership increased the homicide rate actually decreased. If one wanted to extrapolate further you could assume that if everyone were armed then homicides and probably most crime would disappear, as the risk to benefit ratio for criminals would increase dramatically. Robert A. Heinlein said, ?An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.? in his book Beyond This Horizon published in 1942, and that quote makes a strong point for the reduction in gun control laws. Consider a society where everyone was armed and could defend him or herself. In such a society one could assume there might always be rogue elements that would lash out violently but they would be stopped by regular citizens who would be empowered to use their own weapons to apprehend the criminal elements. While this makes sense in theory there are some statistics that can be used to illustrate the point. For instance, ?While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed-carry laws cut death rates from public multiple shootings by a whopping 69 percent? (Faria, qtd. in Cothran, 44). While concealed-carry laws are still a form of gun control they show that a loosening of the laws (before you could not carry a gun at all) can cause a large reduction in the amount of deaths from people committing shootings in public. Another interesting fact to consider is that when Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987 Dade County police began recording all arrests and incidents involving concealed carry licensees, which lasted until 1992. During that time only 4 crimes were recorded and none resulted in injuries so they discontinued the recording keeping because there was not anything to record (Just Facts). This shows that people can be trusted to use their guns in a safe way.
Gun control advocates also make claims about how guns are dangerous for children and they tend to point to school shootings for support of their arguments. If you look at some scenarios though it becomes evident that it is not gun control we need more of but better parental supervision and education. The following excerpt is a good example to prove that gun control laws actually hinder the protection of children, ?In the 1997 Pearl, Mississippi school massacre, sixteen year old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then proceeded to school where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. An assistant principal using a gun stopped Woodham. The assistant principal kept the gun locked in his car outside the school zone and ran to his car to obtain the gun. The assistant principal controlled Woodham for four and a half minutes before the police arrived?(Just Facts). Had the principal been able to carry his gun on his body in the school it seems very likely he could have contained the violent student more quickly and possibly saved more lives. One could also argue if gun control worked perfectly that student would not have had access to a gun, but the student started his rampage by stabbing his mother to death which indicates more than likely he would have continued on his killing spree and stopping a knife wielding student would not be easy if the principal had no gun at his disposal. Another claim often made supporting gun control points to children and accidental deaths caused by firearms. The numbers show a different picture though. In 1996, accidental firearm deaths accounted for only 42 children (under 9 years old). Consider though that during the same year 1,915 died in car accidents, 489 died when struck by cars, 805 children drown, 738 died in fires (Lott, More Guns, Less Crime, 9). So why don?t the anti-gun lobbyist start trying to pass laws banning cars and water because obviously those pose a greater danger to children than firearms. So the basic theory of gun control does not make all that much real world sense and there are even statistics to back up the claims that less gun control actually seem to reduce crime and deaths.
To further explore the idea of gun control and its failures there are even more statistics taken from other countries where strict gun control and even elimination of guns completely has been in effect for many years. One year after the mass confiscation of handguns in Australia, homicide rates increased by 3.2 percent (Francis, qtd. in Cothran, 133). This means without guns people in Australia committed more murders than before, perhaps if all Australians were armed the rate would have been lowered. England banned handguns in 1997 but in a study done two years later it was found the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40% (BBC Online). In England the problem was that the criminals were still able to get guns while law abiding citizens had no defense and the government failed to provide adequate protection. It can be seen in other countries as well that when more gun control laws are passed crime increases, while in other countries that have less gun control laws crime is more easily contained.
The United States should have less gun control because it does not reduce crime or deaths, other countries have proven it can cause more problems, and because it is a citizens Constitutional right to bear arms.
--COPYRIGHT 2004 THE HERON--

Had to delete a paragraph about the consititution but I'm sure most people already know that part.

good quote.
high gun control in canda, can be owned for gaming, but not personal use.

I am a NRA Life member and proud of it!

I think guns are dangerous. People always rant about how bad drugs is and shit. Funny enough they usually mean weed by that.

So far I've never seen any reports of people who smoked themselves to death with it. I'm sure there are some but there's more people that have been smoked by a gun.

Also, a lot of guncrimes are commited by people who have been using drugs. You could say that shows that drugs are bad.
You could also say, the crime would probably have not been commited if the gun wasn't there. I mean, the old trick of 'hand-in-pocket" doesn't really work

You have recently done a Europe tour right? Didn't you feel just safe over here to walk down the streets without the threat of being gunned down? Criminals can get their hands on guns, yes. But the common man has a hard time finding one. That means the guy that got fired from his job doesn't 'fire' his boss, but might resort to suicide or something which to my opinion is safer for the public.

Ofcourse, if you are in favor of the gun you might have arguments against mine. I have given up on trying to convince people that guns are bad.

Get some fucking layout you lazy ass

Guns isn't the answer, head chopping is. Syria is actually pretty safe I hear

Guns are bad, but not as bad as cars...

Let's ban cars and then worry about guns.

Spoken like a true ignorant retard.

sadly we have a lot of idiotic VIOLENT criminals in our society...


look at this historically, Georgia (the state) I believe was a prison colony, we not only had a lot of people escaping religious freedoms WAAAAY back when this country first started, but in general there are or have been a TON of immigrants coming here with CRIMINAL backgrounds they're trying to avoid...


in essence, the gene pool here compared to where you are is a "bit diff" in regards to the probability of violent criminal behavior...


also, through in our cultural differences, we live in a country founded by 'terrorists' against the UK, that basically shot their way to this 'freedom' we have now...


we are a culture of violence

what other country has dropped nuclear devices on another country?

who has a higher violence rate (ok maybe Africa might have a few countries that can match us)

who has a bigger prison population?

who makes more violent movies, TV shows and games than the US?



it's culture and necessity for those that live in it...


if I were to live say in Fiji I might feel differently, not sure....I would like a rifle or shotgun to go bird hunting though, it's actually a fun past time, I'm not a 'hunter' but I love to go target shooting sometimes...














PS: If the bosnians had more weapons and freedom to own guns, maybe our military wouldn't have to have gone there and helped them protect themselves against the Serbian army ;)


ooo, so atrocities happen to people by large bodies of armed people.......


uhm, YUPPPP, even in so-called civilized euro countries.........apparently

How many people have been the victim of those bad people?
How many people have not been saved by the good man?

I soooo wetardedddd... let's talk Muslim birthrates v. Dutch birthrates in Holland.

Ready?

also need to ban jet skis, boats, etc...there are WAAAAY more people killed yearly in water sports (not pissing ya freaks) than by guns...



and that shit is ONLY for recreation, not even any 'need' really....I guess unless you live on an island and need it for transportation lol....





///starts humming:


flipper flipper, faster than lightening....

Pro fun = pro gun obviously, stupid typo.

Gun control is hitting your target, I am all for it

I am going to lunch, I can't wait to come back and and debate this.

Ready. That's my whole point: the birthrates of NON WESTERN people is a BIT higher then indigeonous(sp.) people.

But being NON WESTERN does NOT mean that you are a Muslim by default. Get that head out of you ass and start looking at the world. Stop being short-sighted

No gun control

I own a few... register of course... Wjhoever fucks with me ... I will shoot.... Have done it and will do it again... that´s the law I go By....
the best is that I leave in a place were their is little gun control....
twwo of my babies





Criminal Eat a Bullet.....

Apples and oranges....

I see no problem... so long as the person has a firm grip they should be able to control themselves so to hit their target every time ... unless suffering with CarpalTunnelSyndrome.

start shooting and whoever is left can control the guns

Dude please, we need cars, we dont need guns (unless were in a war)

I dont believe in gun control if somebody tries to hurt me or my family they are dead.

Cars have only been around for about 100 years, guns have been around a lot longer than that.

I would say that it has been proven for thousands of years that we don't need cars. They are only a matter of convenience. Guns on the otherhand have proven their worth for 100's of years, and don't pollute the environment.

I dont mean you're scared as in "look at those american pussies shaking in their boots". I mean scared as in you feel there's a strong need to bare arms for PROTECTION. I don't know one single canadian family who has a gun in their home for protection.

http://www.visionfusion.net/kayla_rolland/

nuff said.

and thats why americans are the most violent people in the world. Untill you see that this "I need to protect my family with a gun" stuff is all bologne and it just makes it easier to get guns on the streets, you guys will always have more murders, more crime, etc.

People buy cars to get from point A to point B.
People buy guns to hurt others ON PURPOSE.


"Duh....I'm gonna buy meself a câh to hold up a liquor store dah"

What do you need a gun for? to harm another human being? Cars cause death by accident, not on purpose. Pollution is a whole other storey.

Can you explain why canada has a much lower murder rate then america?

But if there are no guns, how does one remove the logs from the front lawn?

and how do southerners get married?

and come on ... what 'I'm gunna pot a rim in your ass?'

Your government wouldn't NEED to give you 24/7 protection if guns were illegal!

The wacko's that show up on your doorstep, the ones you are afraid of, are there BECAUSE guns are allowed.

Im about to get a Nickel plated .357 this week



going shooting in a few hours, buddy just bought a new 45 and AR-15