Are you for or against "gun control" and Why?

SORRY I hit the wrong answer. I guess my aim was off. First of all I love the feel of that cool steel on the hand . More importantly I know I have a good chance of hitting my target with a bullet than I have with a limp wrist or words like please don't kill me. The sixteen bullets plus one in chamber will be sure to cause harm to the other party. The first bullet I call the Alpha and last one I call the Omega. I think I'm against gun control.

But a lot of debate centers around gun control, which is at the damage control end of things more than it's done in a informed, sustained, preventative manner (see "emotional intelligence" and mental health issues and how they relate) that goes from craddle to grave. You know, so people are brought up well enough and think well enough so that they don't do end up doing dumb things with guns. That's more preventative than gun control, even though some measure of sensible gun control is clearly needed.

Lets provide gun control, only in your city. Or only at your home. Then you can wait for the police to respond to a after the fact event. Protect yourself. Let others enjoy their legal constitutional rights. It was written to protect the 1st amendment, The pursuit of Happiness freedom and liberty. Im sorry you live in a major city and don't want anyone to have a way to protect themselves.

Stop regurgitating rehearsed or canned responses and pay attention.

I said "even though some measure of sensible gun control is clearly needed" for multiple reasons, some of which you just touched on.

What is going on here? All of you have just had your nose rubbed in strict gun control! All movie goers had a restriction. No fire arms on the property, they obeyed. The only guns present were those of the nut, who could care less about following rules. Fact is the more rules he broke the better. How about requirements in self defense, an art mostly forgotten!

I'd appreciate it if you'd **read** before responding instead of trying to falsely paint me into the box you did, a box I don't fit at all.

You're interpreting my comment through your lens of an uber polarized debate that entertains all-or-nothing thinking and that is not the territory of my opinions or queries.

Reality bubbles like yours make it difficult for you to understand what others are actually suggesting, asking, or convinced about. Do you realize that? It's bothersome. Fix it or get ignored.

In other words, gun control is neither an all-or-nothing proposition nor is it in opposition to increased emotional intelligence, better upbringing, and better ability to prepare or think on-the-spot, in relation to guns.

Gun control laws and policies can vary from very strict limits to far more modest limits, no matter how much debates in some areas of the world may tend to polarize between advocating for the strictest of limits and those who don't believe in gun control.

Karenin: Each State has the right to regulate how they choose. Each citizen has the right to the 2nd amendment. It is a shame that their is such a problem of criminals determining the dialouge .

Both federal and state laws apply in the U.S., yes the Second Amendment is involved but so is the Fourteenth Amendment, but unfortunately dialog between civil rights vs. fear of 'what criminals do' is presently a polarized debate (meaning people tend to take positions more extremely opposed to one another and any middle ground is difficult or nearly impossible to achieve). Polarized debates are not balanced ones. Debate over abortion, parental control, birth control, the drug war and gun control are all highly polarized debates in the U.S.

Polarized debates pretty consistently have the effect of causing loss of sensible boundaries. They favor attempts to legislate behavior, something that consistently has a high failure rate. They also tend to ignore the true underlying or causative factors (things behavioral, intellectual, based on bodies of facts).

With polarized debates, the mood of the country and of states puts entirely too much faith in legislating behavior in regards to gun ownership, in this case, and then, yes, fears regarding 'what criminals do' then bulldozers any attempts of more informed, open dialog.

To counter that climate, a better focus on in on development of the intellectual, emotional and social intelligences that create people and cultures that are far likely to use violence as a solution or way of life -- in practice, not just in theory.

Karen: The question proposed makes look back at the history of countries that have followed the format of eliminating guns. History shows that the Gov't most often then not was wicked and took the lives of millions of people that could not protect themselves. I believe the signors of the Constitution were inspired by diety when the original document was written. The amendment to that document , other then slavery have polluted it. The constitution needs to be healed. Criminals should not have guns. States have the right to requlate concealed weapons.

When seconds count the police are only minuets away.

While the sources may be considered trite by some, 2 bumper stickers express my feelings about gun control very effectively: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". Also, along the same line of reasoning: "5 out of 5 criminals prefer unarmed victims". The second could be added to to include tyrants.

or there is the one on my mom's car, "Guns kill people the way spoons make rosie o'donnel fat"

A disarmed society is easy prey for dictators.

And, has anyone noticed how the crime rate has gone up tremendously in countries where citizens have had their firearms confiscated, such as New Zealand? The criminals will get weapons no matter how many laws there are. Citizens must be able to defend themselves and their property. It's stupid to ban guns pretending that it will stop criminals. It will only embolden them.

It affects honest people with 2nd Amendment rights, not criminals to the extent intended and as much as people would like to think.

Self Defense, the defense of ones home, the defense of the family, and in extreme cases
defense against domestic enemies and the government is basic to freedom.

The criminals are always going to get weapons. Gun control only make it more difficult for the rest of us to defend ourselfs against them. Keep the government the hell out of our business.

MY thoughts exactly

Actually I am in strong support of real gun control. Every gun owner should practice at least once a week to develops familiarity, good safety habits, accuracy with their firearms. Guns are worthless if you can't get them into action fast and place the bullets were they need to go.

I have never seen a problem caused by a law abiding citizen. I have seen all kinds of problems with autos.

Exactly right sir

I am safer with guns in people that have a right to carry one ,the bad guys has them law or not ! And with Obama and Holder putting guns in Mexican hands they may be in our back yards before you know it !!!!!

Is there anyone who believes the bad guys would give up their guns ? People would be sitting ducks if such laws were passed ! How about " SERIOUS " and I mean " SERIOUS " laws that will make people who use guns in the commission of a crime take second thoughts before using it for that purpose. For example an automatic 20 years without parole if used in a crime and a life sentence without parole for causing harm or death ?

Good post!

The constitution guarantees the right of the people to keep and bare arms. Our guns are meant to keep our government afraid of us, and therefore keep its safe from our government

Gun control is hitting what you aim for, not some bureaucrat passing a law.

The people that are going to use a gun in the wrong ways, are going to carry one regardless of legal status.... The rest of us need to be able to Legally carry/own one to protect ourselves.

Everyone has the right to be able to protect themselves, their family, and their home. The Second Amendment gives us that right and it also gives us the ability to defend our country against foreign invaders and a government out of control, our Founding Fathers had first hand knowledge of both of those things and wanted to make sure the citizens of the United States could defend against either one of them.

for assault rifle tight regulations, against banning anything else.



assault rifles could be held at governmental owned ranges and people can pay to use them.



easy revenue for the state.

Criminals should not have guns. Non citizens should be restricted in when and how they are allowed to have guns.

For everyone else it is a RIGHT and rights are not subject to controls.

The first and second amendments exist for a reason. Both are our rights as citizens of the USA.

Considering that Chicago has the highest murder rate in the nation, in the only state that doesn't allow conceal carry. . . You would think that would prove something. . .

Doesn't it suck when such morons like Madigan tell you what you can and cannot do?

Yes it does. . . :-P

It is our right. A country without armed citizens is a country of slaves.

Gun Control is all about taking firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Has not one thing to do with gun toting criminals. Every American has the right to protect themselves , their property and their families from anyone with malicious intent.