Who's for Gun Control?

Very true and accurate comments.

 

I think your point must be that Mexico, like the United States, has allowed so many guns into its system that they are now impossible to control.

Most other countries have not done that.

And so have many fewer people shooting one another.

 

If "gun control" means using a steady hand and hitting your target, then I'm all for it.

 

Then you really need to ponder the website you log onto.

 

It's both actually. The Swiss civilian militia is that nation's de facto army which is made up of conscripts who have to have military training and attend military training sessions annually. This is far removed from Bubba and his 30.06 he bought at Dan's Guns n' Ammo for no reason in particular other than he likes guns.

 

The Second A. allows for both. A Militia AND individuals being well armed to protect themselves generally, and to potentially protect themselves from the government.

 

Are you trying to play policeman? That's what you have the various law enforcement agencies (for which you pay a pretty penny in taxes for) which are there to defend your life and property.

 

The derenged lunatics can speak for themselves. I wondered, if you had more philosophical insights than merely freedom and guns.

 

Extraordinary, isn't it, that some people only feel free if they have guns that they believe offer them some 'guarantee' of freedom. Why don't I feel like that, I wonder?

 

Yes it is interesting, the notion of freedom and guns is so closely tied. Although any deepness beyond that, seems an illusion.

 

When danger is imminent, the police are only minutes away. The police have no duty to protect you as has been decided in court. You are your first and best defense.

 

The right of self defense is freedom.

 

Oh yes indeed! For example, the abyssmal question of how many eggs shall we produce in next 5 years plan, how to decide for people what's best for them, how to hitler-youth the heck out of pupils and make them more altruistic, how to make people understand although people are all equal especially when comes to income, some people are supposed to make decision for others because they are... more equal!

 

I'm absolutely for gun control, while also recognizing that the escape to the "criminals will get them anyway" has zero to do with gun control. People cross into the country illegally, but that doesn't mean our border control agents should lax the existing standards for people attempting to cross via legal routes/means.

 

So far... still seeing only ad hominem attacks towards those who aren't for Gun Control. Yet to see a rational argument beyond someone's own opinion or irrational fear as to why guns should be banned...

 

Also... "gun control" does not mean "banning guns". It means oversight.

 

Gun Control from the majority on this thread seems to revolve around compulsory service to the State and/or banned private weapons. You may be for "oversight" but, those looking at US Gun Laws from the outside are absolutely terrified at the prospect of aperson being able to open carry. Not even sure what you mean by oversight because the term itself is quite vague... if you care to elaborate it would help me understand a different side other than the typical personal attacks I've seen so far.

 

From my perspective oversight means compulsory training (you have to take a driving test, don't you?), proper background checks, registration of weapons.

 

Sure. Oversight in the sense that while this country recognizes the ownership of weapons as a right, I endorse procedures meant to ensure individuals with a sound mental state are able to obtain said weaponry... yet I go so far as to suggest that it should be proven constantly (or annually) as long as a lethal weapon is in one's possession. I'm in awe at the fact that a vehicle is required by law to be inspected periodically to measure proper function for road travel (in order to fall in line with safety standards) yet we don't take the same approach with people who seek to obtain firearms. If a car is unsafe, it shouldn't be on the road... and if a person is in a state that would suggest a mind-altering illness is present, they shouldn't have access to a gun. Like a vehicle, quality can/will change over time... and a persons state of mind may alter due to some life-changing event. It's easier for me to digest crimes committed by people who illegally obtain weapons... that is something that is difficult to curb. What I can't stomach are crimes where a weapon was obtained legally even though there are plenty of warning signs that are overlooked.

 

First, only in the States or Countries that like to force people to spend money every year on their car (it is a racket) have annual inspections.

You should be for annual training for drivers, knife owners, people that own 5 gallon buckets and have kids, anyone that has any kind of legal drug in their house, people that own Drano, etc.. If lethality is the decision point, you should cover all your bases.

 

M hm.

I hate arguments like these, because it's used in a way that disregards the purpose behind the examples given. Drano is for unclogging drains, and an indirect result of consumption exposure is harmful and/or lethal. Legal drugs are for medicinal purposes, yet an indirect result of excessive use can be harmful and/or lethal. Knives are for cutting a variety of materials, and the indirect result of using them on humans can be harmful and/or lethal. A gun is for death. That's it... it's a device invented for the purpose of killing or disabling. Let's not lose sight of that...

 

Tell that to the members of the NRA; methinks they'll get quite a chuckle out of that theory.

 

You assume I care what they think, which is just as chuckle-worthy.

 

I'm pro gun regulation/pro-ownership... but to say that handguns...like pistols or revolvers are not designed for killing or injuring people.... well thats just not honest. Handguns absolutely suck for hunting just about anything, of course one can argue that a handgun can be used as last resort weapon while hunting....its like that one song by whoever.... "Handguns are meant for killin... aint no good for nothin else"...Its why you kill or injure someone else that the controversy starts.

You cant start off defending something with spin and expect anybody to take you seriously.

 

Training to what degree? Going to a FREE course or being forced to dish out money for training, registration, background checks and the continued license? You're merely creating hoops for people to jump through that a typical criminal could just as easily bypass as the examples are shown in areas of high gun control. Why make it harder for law abiding citizens to acquire weapons and be financially drained while holding them?

It's truly subjective as to what a "sound mental state" is when the State itself can and does define some ideologies as hostile which has the potential to refuse the citizen from acquiring the weapon. This is also another hoop to jump that is sound but, a mentally deranged person if they wanted to kill someone will do it... It's just a matter if the other person is taken unaware and/or is unarmed.

A financial drain for those who carry weapons legally? While also trying to prove you're sane... Already sounds extremely expensive for someone on a low income basis to acquire and carry a weapon legally.

Because we're not Machines... there isn't a mechanic that works solely on our brains that knows what is wrong and what is right because it's purely subjective from outsider looking in as to whether or not the person is sane. Governments have a way of making that simplest of problems in ones life mentally into something bigger than it truly is... and to allow a Government to monitor your mental health annually shows how much control they have over your life.

The insane find ways of finding weapons no matter what restriction you put in place... you're only preventing law abiding citizens with annual checks and other fees from being able to rightfully defend themselves. You'll make weapons a Middle to High income class weapons only as prices go up as businesses are forced into further procedure.

You cannot stop everything imaginable by creating barriers... you will only place the power in the hands of criminals and tyrants. Our current drug laws suggest that the people are generally incapable of making personal decisions for themselves and only with Government allowing you to do so are you able to legally. Yet the activity from drugs itself exploded once it was illegal... It created further crime and more injustice. You cannot stop a desired item from being obtained even if the Government spends millions to prevent it from being slipped into someones hands.