Gun control is not about guns, it is about control.
Click to vote
22%23 Votes
Strongly Disagree
13%14 Votes
Disagree
6%6 Votes
Undecided
27%28 Votes
Agree
32%34 Votes
Strongly Agree
22%23 Votes
Strongly Disagree
13%14 Votes
Disagree
6%6 Votes
Undecided
27%28 Votes
Agree
32%34 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
17%12 Votes
Strongly Disagree
17%12 Votes
Disagree
9%6 Votes
Undecided
27%19 Votes
Agree
30%21 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Well , we agree to disagree then, cause that is just what I would do, and I assure you I am a law abiding citizen, and as far as I can tell, have no reason to be not allowed to have a gun.
Really? You have a right to shoot government officials who YOU think are being socialistic or communistic? Really? Why don't you try icing a few, and let us know how that works out for you, Jonmarc.
That's not what he said. He said that if government officials tried to illegally take his guns away, they would have to go through his guns. He understands the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's not so we can shoot skeet in peace.
If they would have to go "through" his guns, then he certainly is threatening to shoot them... so that's exactly what he said.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is spelled out in the amendment itself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Yes, I've read it too. I understand your belief that "A well regulated Militia" is the germane part of the amendment.
In this case, I agree with the Supreme Court that this is an explanatory preamble, not the main point. I don't expect you to change your mind, but I do expect you to understand my point of view.
I'll accept an explanatory preamble. I'll even accept that it is not the germane part of the amendment. What does an explanatory preamble do then? Why it explains the purpose of the amendment. Whaddaya know.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
That is an excellent point. I wonder if it was added for political purposes. It is the only reason I can think of for muddying the waters. The actual impetus for this amendment was the belief that the people have the right to take the country back from the government if it becomes oppressive. Not everyone believed that, even then.
That and the flawed logic that guns are bad. That they can't be used for good. That the police will be able to protect you. That you actually can pass a law to control guns and have criminals obey it. ...
Guns are not bad, but I do want restrictions on who can have what weapons and where. Just like cars are not bad, but I sure want some restrictions on who can drive and at what speed. I doubt there is any one here that is in favour of having no restrictions, regardless of all the shouting against gun licensing.
And to put things in perspective, the most common death by handguns is suicide and the least common use is in self defence. And yes I do like hunting and target shooting.
There are already plenty of restrictions on gun owners, just as there are on drivers. Get the facts, laws just benefit the bad guys, cause the crooks don't worry about them, no matter what!
Come on, BEC44, you're breaking my heart here. I get that you're a gun guy but please don't use that crap line about laws being no good because criminals don't obey them. That's the biggest horse shit line in the entire gun lobby.
If you can back this silly ass statement up with fact, then I will look it over, but I think you are way off base just because you don't like or don't understand the 2nd amendment, don't think the rest of the world is full of shit.
"This has nothing to do with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment. It's about stupid arguments." -- I have to say your argument is itself quite stupid and logically flawed. No one is arguing for anarchy or no laws. But rather that laws (like a gun) need to be carefully aimed at the correct target.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
"That's twice in one question you've mistaken responses. You need to work on your ability to follow the conversation." -- Like many have said, you are just being difficult and nit picking. You know what was meant and how what you said would be taken.
"don't use that crap line about laws being no good because criminals don't obey them. That's the biggest horse shit line in the entire gun lobby. It might seem to make sense to you on the face of it, but if you think about it for more than two seconds, it's an argument for total anarchy." – It is not, and if you thought about it for two seconds you would realize it is correct.
The difference is who the law is directed at, is it directed at the perpetrator of the crime you are trying to stop/punish, or is it simply directed at everyone. The law that murder is illegal is directed at the perpetrator of the crime. If you murder someone you have committed the crime, and the law punished the one who committed the crime.
A law that say no one can have a gun here, is not directed at the perpetrator of a crime, but at everyone. And it doesn’t serve the desired purpose, to prevent criminal acts with guns. Everyone who obeys laws is going to obey this law and leave there gun at home. However there are two problems. First, since they obey laws to start with, they wouldn’t have committed (or would have been very unlikely to have committed) a crime even if they had their gun. Second, a gun can also be used to stop a crime, but since everyone who might have had a gun to use in stopping a crime left it a home to obey the law, that ability to stop crime was legislatively removed.
A criminal intent on committing a crime anyway, is not going to have a problem committing another ancillary crime by having a gun. It is all benefit to the criminal. If he has a gun, he is more likely to be successful in his criminal endeavor. If he doesn’t he is more likely to fail. Whether he has a gun or not, if caught he will be punished. He is obviously going to ignore the no gun law if he has that option. If you can’t follow that you have a serious problem with logical thought.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
If you are going to twist (or translate) everything that is said into your point of view and only accept that as what was said and meant, then no one can have a meaningful conversion with you.
I gave a detail description of why laws against murder are different and you just ignore that (as if it was never said) because it hurts your argument. You deflect and pick and chose the parts of conversations you like and work for you. You twist and nitpick about the details of the words and wording of what you and others have said, totally ignoring the clear and plain meaning and message of what was said.
No thoughtful or logical debate is practical with you.
[1 point]2 years ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 2 years ago by dr1024
Thanks for such an excellent example of how you twist what I say, and purposefully take out of context. Buy replacing gun with murder, and by removing my second point you have show your manipulative nature.
Hardly. The way I wrote my explanation I showed how laws against murder, which are designed to punish those who commit the crime of murder, only impact and punish those who actually commit murder. I also showed that laws that are designed to stop/prevent/lower crime before they happen by illegalizing gun possession (not the use of the gun, but its possession) do not directly or only target those committing the crime(s) the anti-gun laws where designed to stop, but everyone (criminal or not) who may want or need a gun. It has instead of preventing crime, made a new and needless crime to try to stop an old crime. It also ignores the fact (like you ignore the context and substance of a discussion) that a gun in the hands of a good guy or gal can stop that original crime. Whereas the new anti-gun law can't really do that anyway, because as we have already discussed and anyone with a bit of logic can follow, criminals are going to be no more inclined to obey this new anti-gun law than they were inclined to obey the laws against murder (rape, kidnapping, mugging, assault, etc.) However all the good people (you and me and most everyone else) who already obey the laws (against murder rape, kidnapping, mugging, assault, etc.) will also obey this new law (well intentioned but stupid though it is) against guns. Hence all the good people are now defenseless (or certainly at a severe disadvantage to) the criminal who still has a gun.
So now the criminal knows that his potential victims are much less likely to be able to defend themselves if he attacks them. So the “cost” or risk to himself of doing his “business” have just gone down; yet the reward or pay back is just the same as it was. If anything anti-gun laws make crime more appealing and easier to commit.
Only a complete idiot can't follow that logic and instead insist that I said the moon was green or who knows what you will claim this time.
Sorry dr, but you are the one not engaging in logical debate. You're just parroting back his words and restating your logical fallacies. That is not advancing the debate at all. ;o)
Are you kidding? She couldn't have been more clear. Then she explained it AGAIN in even more clear language.
I know that you are a Liberal and we disagree on many things, but I've never caught you deliberately misreading posts and misquoting people like translate does. I'd be leery about backing him up.
That's what I said... she's restating the same fallacious argument (in even more clear language if you like). I'm not misreading her argument, I'm just disagreeing with it. ;o)
I get it. What you said about logical fallacies set me off. Her arguments mesh well with my observations and beliefs. I think they are perfectly logical and make a great deal of sense. I don't have any idea how to dispute your (obviously different) observations.
“Guns are not bad, but I do want restrictions on who can have what weapons and where.” – Why? The who I can get behind if you mean convicted felons. But if, as you just said, the gun is not bad why do you want to restrict which ones we can have (are some of them bad?) and where? Do they only make us criminals in certain places? Gun free zones insure that all the good people are unarmed and only the good people. A criminal, who breaks serous laws against killing and murder, certainly is not going to obey a law about not having a gun. So now the only people in a gun free zone with guns are the criminals and law enforcement if any. So the criminal knows that he is the only one armed. He knows no one can fight back. If he is homicidal/suicidal, he knows he can kill lots of defenseless people for a long time before any resistance arrives. This is why nearly all mass murders of 3 or more people have all happened in gun free zones.
“Just like cars are not bad, but I sure want some restrictions on who can drive and at what speed.” – That is not a accurate analogy. The corollary to speed limits would be laws on where you can and can’t shoot the gun (which do exist in most places), and we do have restriction (require licensing in most locations) to carry.
"the most common death by handguns is suicide and the least common use is in self defense." -- The problem with this statement/statistic (which is absolutely technically correct) is that the goal/success of a gun used in self defense is not the killing of someone. I don't have to kill someone to have used my gun successfully in self defense. I don't have to even have fired it. Many if not most uses of guns in self defense go unreported and unnoticed for just this reason. We only pay attention when someone dies. Multiple studies (including anti-gun studies) have found that guns are used about 2 million times a year in self defense.
I have no problem saying that convicted felons can’t have guns. But that isn’t enough for those who don’t like guns. They then start to think that there are good guns and bad guns. And everyone’s definition of what a good gun is and a bad gun is differs. Today it is “assault rifles” that are bad, but tomorrow someone will correctly realize that there is no such thing as an “assault rifle” as used in the media. They are simply normal semi-automatic (not automatic) rifles that fire relatively small cartridges. So once they ban “assault rifles” they should of course be able to ban semi-automatic hunting rifles, because they are the same type of mechanism and fire more powerful cartridges. And don’t think it can’t happen. Just ask our friends in Australia who lost their rights.
Gun control is built on a flawed premises. The premises that the gun is the problem and that by controlling the gun you control the problem.
“And yes I do like hunting and target shooting.” – There are those who do not, and just as you have a problems with my view on guns, other will have a problem with your view that guns are okay for hunting and target shooting. Ask our friends in the UK who had to turn in all hand guns used for hunting and target shooting, and hunting is so infringed it is an endangered sport.
Got some evidence for that assertion, big guy? Since your assertion directly contradicts what translate said above, I'm guessing the answer would be, no.
But hey... when has a lack of evidence ever stopped you in the past. Glenn Beck would be proud.
"they mark them down if they don't agree which removes the comment from sight." -- That is childish, but very arguably what the system is for. After all you would vote up someone you did agree with.
The only problem I have is people who get voted down just because it is obvious they are not liked rather than because of what they said. But that is life and you have to live with it. The only alternative would be to appeal to higher authority to enforce morality, manners and good behavior, and I don't like that. Both Republican's and Democrat's screw that up; they just choose different aspects of good morality, manners and good behavior to enforce.
I don't know what part of the southeast US you live in, Jonny, but if you call for a large pepperoni pizza and the police at the same time for a weapons crime, AND the pizza shows up first, I do think the police know you. Your argument is ridiculous on this front.
Like I said, asswipe, the police KNOW you. That's why the pizza guy shows up first. When seconds count, you first have to mremember where your piece is and hold it STEADY, old man. Say hi to Wing for me. Ans april, Tru Blu and the rest of your sock puppets.
To me gun control is just registering your weapon. What are people so afraid of? If I had a gun I would not have a problem registering it. I am a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide. I think NRA members are just looking for a fight.
Of course it is about control, any law dealing with guns (or whatever) is about control, this is a dumb question. Even the second amendment is about control if you want to be nit-picky.
I would not have a gun in my house because I think an accidental death would be much more likely than a need to have protection from criminals.
At the same time I feel protected if I know all of my neighbors have guns. The real value of having guns will probably never been realized until the unthinkable happens... a WW III scenario where all the large cities have been bombed out, food and water have become scarce, and marauding gangs of theives are roaming the countryside searching for food and water for their families and friends. Hopefully such a scenario will never occur, but if it does people will be very glad they never let anyone take their guns away.
BlackOrchid said, "Wait! Let me get this straight! You think you are protected because your neighbors have guns? What R U going to do when Mr. Killer breaks in your front door - call a neighbor? Good luck with that! I am sure your neighbors would tell you to call the cops.
As for accidental deaths do to guns, if you become familiar with that 'tool' just like you do with a lawnmower, chainsaw, or anything else it is not a problem. You must indoctrinate your family about any 'tool' so they will handle it safely or leave it alone. I have had all types of firearms around my family for years with no accidents because as soon as possible, I taught the kids gun safety. Taking them to a place where they can see what a bullet does to a buck of water, a watermelon, etc really makes an impression. I made sure they understood that getting shot as a cowboy on TV is not the same as getting shot with a real gun as portrayed by the exploding watermelon.
I appreciate you opinion about keeping guns in case of natural/man made disasters. That will be something I would not want to got thru.
On that subject, have you see the series called "Jericho?" Interesting scenario where 'bombs' explode in many US cities and the world goes to shet as we know it. Jericho is a little town that tries to survive the problems of no government in charge. Pretty neat! You should check it out! BTW, everyone is armed in that whole series... LOL!"
United States
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
If they want my guns, come and try to take them.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI don't see it as a threat. That is the way it would be.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyWell , we agree to disagree then, cause that is just what I would do, and I assure you I am a law abiding citizen, and as far as I can tell, have no reason to be not allowed to have a gun.
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Remember that translate is just trying to poison as many things as he can. He has absolutely no interest in solving problems or playing fair.
This comment was deleted.
[2 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I do what I can ;)
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThe threat was that someone would try to take them by force. The use was in response to that threat. Get your threats in the correct order.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
As has been said before, now you are just being difficult and nit picking words.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyReally? You have a right to shoot government officials who YOU think are being socialistic or communistic? Really? Why don't you try icing a few, and let us know how that works out for you, Jonmarc.
That's not what he said. He said that if government officials tried to illegally take his guns away, they would have to go through his guns. He understands the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's not so we can shoot skeet in peace.
If they would have to go "through" his guns, then he certainly is threatening to shoot them... so that's exactly what he said.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is spelled out in the amendment itself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Yes, I've read it too. I understand your belief that "A well regulated Militia" is the germane part of the amendment.
In this case, I agree with the Supreme Court that this is an explanatory preamble, not the main point. I don't expect you to change your mind, but I do expect you to understand my point of view.
I'll accept an explanatory preamble. I'll even accept that it is not the germane part of the amendment. What does an explanatory preamble do then? Why it explains the purpose of the amendment. Whaddaya know.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
That is an excellent point. I wonder if it was added for political purposes. It is the only reason I can think of for muddying the waters. The actual impetus for this amendment was the belief that the people have the right to take the country back from the government if it becomes oppressive. Not everyone believed that, even then.
And as we found out in 1860, a false premise to boot.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
He has a blind spot big enough to drive a truck through. It would be sad if he wasn't so poisonous.
That and the flawed logic that guns are bad. That they can't be used for good. That the police will be able to protect you. That you actually can pass a law to control guns and have criminals obey it. ...
Guns are not bad, but I do want restrictions on who can have what weapons and where. Just like cars are not bad, but I sure want some restrictions on who can drive and at what speed. I doubt there is any one here that is in favour of having no restrictions, regardless of all the shouting against gun licensing.
And to put things in perspective, the most common death by handguns is suicide and the least common use is in self defence. And yes I do like hunting and target shooting.
There are already plenty of restrictions on gun owners, just as there are on drivers. Get the facts, laws just benefit the bad guys, cause the crooks don't worry about them, no matter what!
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply* Vote Up
* Vote Down
Come on, BEC44, you're breaking my heart here. I get that you're a gun guy but please don't use that crap line about laws being no good because criminals don't obey them. That's the biggest horse shit line in the entire gun lobby.
If you can back this silly ass statement up with fact, then I will look it over, but I think you are way off base just because you don't like or don't understand the 2nd amendment, don't think the rest of the world is full of shit.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply"This has nothing to do with my understanding of the 2nd Amendment. It's about stupid arguments." -- I have to say your argument is itself quite stupid and logically flawed. No one is arguing for anarchy or no laws. But rather that laws (like a gun) need to be carefully aimed at the correct target.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply"That's twice in one question you've mistaken responses. You need to work on your ability to follow the conversation." -- Like many have said, you are just being difficult and nit picking. You know what was meant and how what you said would be taken.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAhh, the old hit, run, and delete. What a puusy you are, Jonny..
"don't use that crap line about laws being no good because criminals don't obey them. That's the biggest horse shit line in the entire gun lobby. It might seem to make sense to you on the face of it, but if you think about it for more than two seconds, it's an argument for total anarchy." – It is not, and if you thought about it for two seconds you would realize it is correct.
The difference is who the law is directed at, is it directed at the perpetrator of the crime you are trying to stop/punish, or is it simply directed at everyone. The law that murder is illegal is directed at the perpetrator of the crime. If you murder someone you have committed the crime, and the law punished the one who committed the crime.
A law that say no one can have a gun here, is not directed at the perpetrator of a crime, but at everyone. And it doesn’t serve the desired purpose, to prevent criminal acts with guns. Everyone who obeys laws is going to obey this law and leave there gun at home. However there are two problems. First, since they obey laws to start with, they wouldn’t have committed (or would have been very unlikely to have committed) a crime even if they had their gun. Second, a gun can also be used to stop a crime, but since everyone who might have had a gun to use in stopping a crime left it a home to obey the law, that ability to stop crime was legislatively removed.
A criminal intent on committing a crime anyway, is not going to have a problem committing another ancillary crime by having a gun. It is all benefit to the criminal. If he has a gun, he is more likely to be successful in his criminal endeavor. If he doesn’t he is more likely to fail. Whether he has a gun or not, if caught he will be punished. He is obviously going to ignore the no gun law if he has that option. If you can’t follow that you have a serious problem with logical thought.
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIf you are going to twist (or translate) everything that is said into your point of view and only accept that as what was said and meant, then no one can have a meaningful conversion with you.
I gave a detail description of why laws against murder are different and you just ignore that (as if it was never said) because it hurts your argument. You deflect and pick and chose the parts of conversations you like and work for you. You twist and nitpick about the details of the words and wording of what you and others have said, totally ignoring the clear and plain meaning and message of what was said.
No thoughtful or logical debate is practical with you.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThanks for such an excellent example of how you twist what I say, and purposefully take out of context. Buy replacing gun with murder, and by removing my second point you have show your manipulative nature.
This comment was deleted.
[-8 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply...and on you, asshole!
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyHardly. The way I wrote my explanation I showed how laws against murder, which are designed to punish those who commit the crime of murder, only impact and punish those who actually commit murder. I also showed that laws that are designed to stop/prevent/lower crime before they happen by illegalizing gun possession (not the use of the gun, but its possession) do not directly or only target those committing the crime(s) the anti-gun laws where designed to stop, but everyone (criminal or not) who may want or need a gun. It has instead of preventing crime, made a new and needless crime to try to stop an old crime. It also ignores the fact (like you ignore the context and substance of a discussion) that a gun in the hands of a good guy or gal can stop that original crime. Whereas the new anti-gun law can't really do that anyway, because as we have already discussed and anyone with a bit of logic can follow, criminals are going to be no more inclined to obey this new anti-gun law than they were inclined to obey the laws against murder (rape, kidnapping, mugging, assault, etc.) However all the good people (you and me and most everyone else) who already obey the laws (against murder rape, kidnapping, mugging, assault, etc.) will also obey this new law (well intentioned but stupid though it is) against guns. Hence all the good people are now defenseless (or certainly at a severe disadvantage to) the criminal who still has a gun.
So now the criminal knows that his potential victims are much less likely to be able to defend themselves if he attacks them. So the “cost” or risk to himself of doing his “business” have just gone down; yet the reward or pay back is just the same as it was. If anything anti-gun laws make crime more appealing and easier to commit.
Only a complete idiot can't follow that logic and instead insist that I said the moon was green or who knows what you will claim this time.
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyROTFLMAO asshole!
Sorry dr, but you are the one not engaging in logical debate. You're just parroting back his words and restating your logical fallacies. That is not advancing the debate at all. ;o)
Are you kidding? She couldn't have been more clear. Then she explained it AGAIN in even more clear language.
I know that you are a Liberal and we disagree on many things, but I've never caught you deliberately misreading posts and misquoting people like translate does. I'd be leery about backing him up.
That's what I said... she's restating the same fallacious argument (in even more clear language if you like). I'm not misreading her argument, I'm just disagreeing with it. ;o)
I get it. What you said about logical fallacies set me off. Her arguments mesh well with my observations and beliefs. I think they are perfectly logical and make a great deal of sense. I don't have any idea how to dispute your (obviously different) observations.
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou have no sense, that's why you're an asshole.
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyYou ARE a fucking asshole, Jonny!!
“Guns are not bad, but I do want restrictions on who can have what weapons and where.” – Why? The who I can get behind if you mean convicted felons. But if, as you just said, the gun is not bad why do you want to restrict which ones we can have (are some of them bad?) and where? Do they only make us criminals in certain places? Gun free zones insure that all the good people are unarmed and only the good people. A criminal, who breaks serous laws against killing and murder, certainly is not going to obey a law about not having a gun. So now the only people in a gun free zone with guns are the criminals and law enforcement if any. So the criminal knows that he is the only one armed. He knows no one can fight back. If he is homicidal/suicidal, he knows he can kill lots of defenseless people for a long time before any resistance arrives. This is why nearly all mass murders of 3 or more people have all happened in gun free zones.
“Just like cars are not bad, but I sure want some restrictions on who can drive and at what speed.” – That is not a accurate analogy. The corollary to speed limits would be laws on where you can and can’t shoot the gun (which do exist in most places), and we do have restriction (require licensing in most locations) to carry.
"the most common death by handguns is suicide and the least common use is in self defense." -- The problem with this statement/statistic (which is absolutely technically correct) is that the goal/success of a gun used in self defense is not the killing of someone. I don't have to kill someone to have used my gun successfully in self defense. I don't have to even have fired it. Many if not most uses of guns in self defense go unreported and unnoticed for just this reason. We only pay attention when someone dies. Multiple studies (including anti-gun studies) have found that guns are used about 2 million times a year in self defense.
I have no problem saying that convicted felons can’t have guns. But that isn’t enough for those who don’t like guns. They then start to think that there are good guns and bad guns. And everyone’s definition of what a good gun is and a bad gun is differs. Today it is “assault rifles” that are bad, but tomorrow someone will correctly realize that there is no such thing as an “assault rifle” as used in the media. They are simply normal semi-automatic (not automatic) rifles that fire relatively small cartridges. So once they ban “assault rifles” they should of course be able to ban semi-automatic hunting rifles, because they are the same type of mechanism and fire more powerful cartridges. And don’t think it can’t happen. Just ask our friends in Australia who lost their rights.
Gun control is built on a flawed premises. The premises that the gun is the problem and that by controlling the gun you control the problem.
“And yes I do like hunting and target shooting.” – There are those who do not, and just as you have a problems with my view on guns, other will have a problem with your view that guns are okay for hunting and target shooting. Ask our friends in the UK who had to turn in all hand guns used for hunting and target shooting, and hunting is so infringed it is an endangered sport.
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyGot some evidence for that assertion, big guy? Since your assertion directly contradicts what translate said above, I'm guessing the answer would be, no.
But hey... when has a lack of evidence ever stopped you in the past. Glenn Beck would be proud.
Exactly!!
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIsn't it time for the farewell tour again, Jonny?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I see you chose not to answer the question. Hmmmm...
That is a lot your fault for being a dick!
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyAll the right wing pinko crap you have to throw into every question, people just don't care what you say, it is bad to them, because it is from YOU..
This comment was deleted.
[-6 points] 2 years ago by deleted user Reply"they mark them down if they don't agree which removes the comment from sight." -- That is childish, but very arguably what the system is for. After all you would vote up someone you did agree with.
The only problem I have is people who get voted down just because it is obvious they are not liked rather than because of what they said. But that is life and you have to live with it. The only alternative would be to appeal to higher authority to enforce morality, manners and good behavior, and I don't like that. Both Republican's and Democrat's screw that up; they just choose different aspects of good morality, manners and good behavior to enforce.
This comment was deleted.
[-7 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt is about not wanting to understand!
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI don't know what part of the southeast US you live in, Jonny, but if you call for a large pepperoni pizza and the police at the same time for a weapons crime, AND the pizza shows up first, I do think the police know you. Your argument is ridiculous on this front.
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyLike I said, asswipe, the police KNOW you. That's why the pizza guy shows up first. When seconds count, you first have to mremember where your piece is and hold it STEADY, old man. Say hi to Wing for me. Ans april, Tru Blu and the rest of your sock puppets.
To me gun control is just registering your weapon. What are people so afraid of? If I had a gun I would not have a problem registering it. I am a law abiding citizen with nothing to hide. I think NRA members are just looking for a fight.
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyOf course it is about control, any law dealing with guns (or whatever) is about control, this is a dumb question. Even the second amendment is about control if you want to be nit-picky.
I would not have a gun in my house because I think an accidental death would be much more likely than a need to have protection from criminals.
At the same time I feel protected if I know all of my neighbors have guns. The real value of having guns will probably never been realized until the unthinkable happens... a WW III scenario where all the large cities have been bombed out, food and water have become scarce, and marauding gangs of theives are roaming the countryside searching for food and water for their families and friends. Hopefully such a scenario will never occur, but if it does people will be very glad they never let anyone take their guns away.
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyThe deleted portion...
BlackOrchid said, "Wait! Let me get this straight! You think you are protected because your neighbors have guns? What R U going to do when Mr. Killer breaks in your front door - call a neighbor? Good luck with that! I am sure your neighbors would tell you to call the cops.
As for accidental deaths do to guns, if you become familiar with that 'tool' just like you do with a lawnmower, chainsaw, or anything else it is not a problem. You must indoctrinate your family about any 'tool' so they will handle it safely or leave it alone. I have had all types of firearms around my family for years with no accidents because as soon as possible, I taught the kids gun safety. Taking them to a place where they can see what a bullet does to a buck of water, a watermelon, etc really makes an impression. I made sure they understood that getting shot as a cowboy on TV is not the same as getting shot with a real gun as portrayed by the exploding watermelon.
I appreciate you opinion about keeping guns in case of natural/man made disasters. That will be something I would not want to got thru.
On that subject, have you see the series called "Jericho?" Interesting scenario where 'bombs' explode in many US cities and the world goes to shet as we know it. Jericho is a little town that tries to survive the problems of no government in charge. Pretty neat! You should check it out! BTW, everyone is armed in that whole series... LOL!"
To reply to this comment, click this link:
http://www.ask500people.com/questions/gun-control-is-not-about-guns-it-is-about-control#comment_238739
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyLOL