See, you hit the nail right on the head.
That is the quandry of the whole issue.
NOBODY wants to experience the death of a loved one.
We feverishly work to try to prevent it.
Its the success of our prevention that is causing the problem.

Psychopaths are few and far between.
Sociopaths are much more common.
Then we have poor judgement and lack of emotional control.

In a small group the ratios are sparse but as a population grows, so does the ratio. More people in small spaces creates more problems.
Its much easier to control a small population than a large one.
With a small population, the controlling entities have time to examine and decide on a course of action. The controlling entities are well-defined and given authority by the society.
In large populations, the controlling entities are random, not well-defined. Their actions are extreme and made without much deliberation or control. They are not elected as a component of society, they are rouge entities working, functioning on biased (often insane) reasoning.

We are a world population. We don't have the luxury of small town ethics that are determined because everybody know everybody else. The massive population causes anonimity and reduced ethical morality.

More people = More problems.

Thanks tom

I would feel anger initially and empathy eventually for the person who decided to impact my loved ones life by pulling a trigger. I would feel mournful of the loss of that life in my own life. I would feel disappointed and upset if the circumstances were something that were easily avoided by, as you say, 'tighter controls'.

Right answer msharmony, now stick em up and give me all your money

jokes on you, my money wont buy you the bullets for the gun ... lol

but you can have my barely used phone, and wallet with debit card license and coupons in it ...

Trust me to find a poor one, here, take my gun and all my money, I'm out of here

I just finished watching a Netflix Original movie The Titan (2018).
Its a movie set in 2050 or so and is a look at overpopulation and a unique solution.
One method of culling without killing would be to mutate the human body to survive on another planet or moon. In this case Saturn's Titan.
A huge problem with moving off-world is that we would need to terraform our destination to accomodate us. This unique movie explored a concepth I hadn't considered. To change us to fit our destination.
The movie itself looks at the changes to the human body and explores the question of whether a genetically altered human would still be human.
What I was enthused about was the concept behind the film. The film was good, well made and had good special effects and makeup.
In actual science, I'm not sure if we have the understanding and technology to perform such a change, but hey, its science fiction.

An alternative take on the same concept that may not be so drastic might be mutations to allow the human body to survive in a spaceship or station for long duration.
I believe it is a viable concept for culling the population.

Should there be guns on the space station?
If we ever exodus to space, should we take guns with us?
In the new Lost in Space (2018) series, there is a gun printed but safety systems had to be over-ridden to do it.
The concept of a gun-free world is enticing but does anyone think it could be possible?

anything is possible, Im sure the gun will be replaced one day with an even easier and 'more efficient' way of killing and maiming. We are obssessed as humans with doing what we can instead of what we should, we chase tangible 'progress' instead of spiritual or human progress.

I dont think it is probable the world will all give up their fears, anger, or violence, or the tools that help them manifest.

Durex made one but if you pull out one it doesn't look so gangster man

There were killings before guns. The bad guys will always find a way. Stricter gun laws really don't help. They hurt the good ones that want to protect. Hell I could find a gun "under the table". But (as to what was asked) I will protect me and mine. Sorry but I wouldn't have empathy for a punk that harmed or killed my loved one. I have posted before about a crazy coming into a restaurant and killed someone and a customer (legal conceal and carry) shot him to protect himself, wife and others

I am all for gun control....I control my gun!

The thing is that there are all sorts of gun control laws. Unfortunately, criminals do not follow the law!

Also, I notice that there are many cases where children get ahold of their parent's weapon. And there is something wrong with an adult who will leave their gun where it is accessible to someone else.

Mama got shot because she left her gun in her handbag, and her young in went in there searching for gum, or candy.

I always found that to be quite the dilemma. I dont own or want to own a gun. Yet, if one is going to own one for protection, but have to lock it away from kids, it seems like to protect the kids they have to go back to being basically unprotected, or to be protected they have to put kids at risk.


And criminals are criminals because they dont follow laws, but the laws separate and make it easier to identify and prosecute the criminals.

If you don't like guns there are other countries to move to

The U.S. doesn't need more laws for guns. It comes down to actual enforcement of the laws that are already in place.

Guns are not for me, but I do understand others enjoy them for hunting and sports, and some need them for their positions in security. At the end of the day, they are a product like any other. Cars that go 400 miles an hour are not needed because there is no place where driving that fast is legal, and similarly, guns should have legal guidelines in their manufacture so that guns that are similar to military weapons (maximum numbers, minimal effort) do not need to be in civilian hands.

It should go without saying that guns in general do not need to be in the hands of the emotionally unstable, any more than a car should be driven by a blind person.

Those two issues being addressed and enforced would be a nice start.

You don't need to understand anything about others desire or use for guns.
You are owed absolutely nothing in terms of justification for someone to exercise their right, except when their exercising it directly interferes with the exercising of yours, and you're in a court of law.


Guns are not cars. Guns are a right recognized federally by constitution, cars/the use of public roads are a privilege granted by the state.
A more appropriate comparison would be to dictionary's.
A gun is to the second amendment as a dictionary is to the first amendment.
Legislating firearms, even the industry, is like trying to legislate the dictionary industry and believing people will stop being motivated to use certain words or finding new words to express themselves.

Other than that, there are legal guidelines in the manufacture of weapons similar to those of cars. People are lazy and not unified. They allow their rights to be eroded.
Anyway, there are guidelines. Which protect the end user. Not the potential victim.
They may not go 400 miles per hour, but they also go above 5 miles per hour.
A car traveling 50 MPH will kill a pedestrian just as much as a car going 400 MPH.
If there was a constitutional amendment stating "the right of the people to travel as fast as possible over ground shall not be infringed," I think there would be "street legal" cars that could go 400 MPH.

Also, states do have laws similar to street legal cars (i.e. designated places for use/non use) for firearms. Like no guns in schools, no guns in bars, no firearms in public buildings like the courthouse. Also in the manufacture of firearms. Like if you drop a gun it won't go off. They're simply not built that way anymore. Some the industry have chosen to do for themselves, like an indicator when it's loaded.

Not to mention, there are state/federal rules limiting the use of cars. e.g. no drinking and driving, no driving over 25 MPH in a school zone, no texting and driving.
Government can pass all the laws it wants trying to dictate use.
Laws do not stop people from speeding, texting, drinking, excessive speed for a particular road (a 25 mph rated curve can't handle someone going 75 let alone 400 mph).


I just find this kinda laughable.
Where to start.

There are 100-300+ million guns in civilian hands in the U.S.
There are 300+ million people in the U.S.
1 in 3-5 people in the U.S. live in a household with guns.

The military is comprised of .4% of the population of the U.S.
There are 537 elected officials in Washington that control that military to some degree.

Several of our wars over the past 100 years were entered into by the U.S. under false pretenses, misinterpreted or staged events.
Vietnam, WWII, Iraq II, Korea, Bay of pigs.

The U.S. government is the biggest arms dealer in the world.
Remember the Iran Contra affair? CIA arming the Taliban/Afghanistan against the Russians? Trumps arms deal with Saudi Arabia? Fast and Furious?

During Iraq II it was reported civilian casualties numbered over 200,000. The U.S. government tends to suppress reports of civilian and accidental deaths, friendly fire.

To me the idea there should be a difference between "military" and "civilian" use is laughable.
The military is no more responsible than the average American in the use of weapons. It's just nowhere near as sensationalized.

Not to mention, some of the "mass shooting" or "serial shootings" that have taken place in the last 20 years were committed by those in, or who were, in the military.

And lately you read a lot about cops shooting unarmed suspects.
Or cops accidentally discharging their guns at home, in schools, in public.
Or cops shooting bystanders, unloading a full magazine at a suspect and hitting a crowd.

The government is not magically responsible with weapons.
The military is not magically responsible with weapons.
Groups sanctioned by the government allowing them access to firearms are no more responsible than the average american.
Probably less so (I don't want to do the math).
Except for the police it seems the press is simply less sensationalized.


"Emotionally unstable" is vastly different than being "blind."
Pretty easy to determine if someone is blind.
Feel free to let us all know exactly how you measure every private U.S. citizen without interfering with their rights to determine at any point in their life when they are, or become, "emotionally unstable" to the extent they will use a firearm to kill people. Possibly as opposed to poison, gas, explosives, a blunt object, a car or truck.

When I need better control, I use both hands.

Gun control.....

A steady hand and well placed shot.