imamonster :

But America cannot prevent gun ownership. There are too many producers, too much passion about ownership, and it's too easy to smuggle them in. There is no point in attempt to stop gun ownership anywhere other than New England.

rcarter2 :        
UFC :       
that was my whole argument to begin with, keep guns out of the hands of loonies and there wont be a prob. i think the safety classes are a great idea, but i think the all out ban on assault charges is maybe a little extreme, especially if it happened 20-30 years ago. maybe a short waiting period or a reference from close family or friends as to whether or not he still has tendencies to be violent, or both. after all, you can talk to any elderly person about there youth and they will have stories.

m0ssb3rg935 :
rcarter2 :
UFC :

I'm going to side with the fact that any sort of violent charge should be grounds for suspending the sale of a weapon, and I don't care if it happened half a century ago. I'm of the opinion that while people can change on the surface, their deep rooted tendencies, once taught, are irreversible. He who knows violence will always know violence.

However, I say 'suspend the sale' not 'block the sale' because there are some situations in which the charge needs to be reviewed. These would be few in number, but given the fact that our justice system is still far from perfect, and was even less perfect 50 years ago, there may be some things that were deemed 'violent' when they really weren't. For example, I remember hearing in the news a few years back of an 11-year-old kid who was given a misdemeanor for pointing a toy gun at another kid at a public park. Complete and utter nonsense like that should not stop the kid from being able to defend himself when he is a grown man.

Zurenriri :

I think I like the idea that how ever old you are when you commit the crime, that's how long you wait. If you're 25 and beat someone up, you have to wait 25 years for ownership. If you're 35, you'll be 70 years old before that's allowed again.

The elderly rarely commit violent crimes, but handguns are useful for them during a breaking and entering scenario. The elderly are so easily taken advantage. Many elderly live in bad neighborhoods because they are cheap to live in, but criminals target them because they cannot easily defend themselves.

I like to try new things, so one of the things I argued for in a paper was that males were not allowed to have handguns, but females would be. Females only represent a tiny fraction of gun crimes, and nearly none of the gun homicide crime. It'll never actually be a law anywhere, but it's an interesting thought.

Txgangsta : You know what? I like that idea too. Although I would add that if you're 16 or under it adds half of your age, so the maximum penalty would be 8 years for a minor. Although I said above that once a man knows violence, he will always know violence, there is still a glimmer of hope for a person in their formative years.

I'm new here, but political arguments are so fun, don't know why.
So, as for the always know violence thing, I'm more of the opinion that everyone has a little psycho in them. Allowing women to have guns and men not is a grand idea, but what happens when they're married/living together blablabla mushy wushu stuff that bothers me. While it's a great idea to attemt to stop people like me(I am a psychopathic/sadistic person, if you need proof, I will post the most horrid things imaginable regarding torture."), I can get a gun if I want. Now I'm going to try to stay active here so that I can say something someone hasn't already.

ShadowLink12 : If a bad guy wants a gun he is going to get one. Case closed. No matter what restrictions are put in to place, they will still be able to get one. Heroin and cocaine are illegal, are they not? Yet somehow if a person wants to get some heroin or cocaine, they find a way. What will happen is all of the innocent law-abiding citizens will not have guns, but it will not affect the criminals ability to obtain weapons at all. They will still get their guns, the only problem is that the victims won't have a gun to defend themselves.

I think definitely less gun control it doesn't make since to just have criminals and cops have guns.

ShadowLink12 : I agree with tgags13, but where do WMDs come into this? That category of weapon is implying nukes, non-nuclear ballistic missles(MOABs, for example) chemical weapons, that sort of thing.
Other arguments that I have. Any mention of assault rifles is completely illegitimate. Looking at history, (WWII) the Sturmgewher(didI spell that right) 44 was the first assault rifle, meaning that it could be, at the turn of a switch, changed from automatic fire to semi-automatic. A few of these could replace entire squads of soldiers. Civilians who do not own a B-Class weapons license cannot own assault weapons, we can own semi-automatic versions, which still pack quite a punch, such as the AR 15. I'm not saying that it would be extremely difficult to convert the, into assault rifles, but still.
And while I still think that bad guys would get their hands on guns, look at places like the UK. Almost zero guns, almost zero gun deaths. Well that's great right? Now, dig deeper. Look at how many people were beaten, stabbed, or bludgeoned(ooh, my favorite) to death. Not so great. There's no way to fight back against these people without guns.
Now look at Israel. Instead of No Gun Zomes, they have Staff Heavily armed and trained, any attempt to harm the children will be met with deadly force. They had 4 gun deaths in civilian pop. In 2012 one was a teacher protecting students. Three were the gunmen. Apparently, compulsory military service helps out a lot. Not that I want to join, mind you, I'm too cowardly.

Titan127 : exactly, in the first few hours of the first day of June this year, there were more than 4 shootings in the city of Chicago, where its nearly impossible to obtain a handgun..... legally that is. Then you look at places with even more extreme forms of government control, there are people being murdered all the time in china, (and not just my the govt) with knives NOT guns.

it also pays off to know the history of assault weapons like you said, I for one would not classify anything short of an MP5 or a tommygun as an assault weapon. Lets look at the history of the m16, the .222 Remington was invented in 1950 and was an instant hit among bench rest shooters for its incredible accuracy and was a huge success for many years. After being eclipsed by the 6mm PPC the military contacted Remington, asking them to develop a new cartridge based on a stretched .222 design, and thus the .222 Remington magnum was invented by stretching the case, blowing out the taper and moving the shoulder forward for a great increase of powder capacity. The military did not adopt the cartridge and the .222 Remington magnum was then commercially marketed. The military did however make there own design based on the .222 and the 5.56x45 NATO was invented. Afterwards Remington marketed there own version of the 5.56mm and the .223 Remington was born. So a semi auto m-4/ar-15 is a glorified varmint rifle. NOT an assault weapon

what i suggest are better laws and not more gun control. if its not a government power grab, why is the word control being used? a mandatory background check that should include whether or not someone has been to a psychiatrist, for which a long waiting period should be put in place, and anyone on ANY kind of pills. im more concerned with a guy on happy pills with a gun than a drunk with a gun. other than that, the government should not have any influence on these kinds of laws and it should be left up to the people of the individual states to decide what kinds of laws they want to live under. Don't like the laws of your state? move to one you would be more comfortable in.

Yay! A smart person! And don't forget, there are more than twice as many car-related deaths every year in the USA than gun-related. Hmm...now which one should we regulate here? (LOL NOT the second sentence, that was pure and simple sarcasm.

I just have a short statement to make about this one: 2nd Amendment.

Titan127 : Not sure if you said the m0ssb3erg is smart or not....

thing1 : Amen.

tgags123 : if no gun ever existed, why the hell would we need a gum. If there are no guns criminals wouldn't get them. No gun is necessary. Wait until someone you love is shot up, then you'll be against guns. If everyone has a gun, that will just make more people shoot each other, because some people don't give a shirt about their own lives. It's that simple. Yeah, it's not possible for there not to be any guns in the world, so blame the a** h*** who created them to hunt so,staying or whatnot.

Barathemos : You said it yourself, the only way for there to be no guns is for them to have never been created. And since they have been created, we need to protect ourselves from them. And the best way to so that is to fight fire with fire. Let's say a guy is going to rob a store. He walks into the store and he sees that the cashier is armed. 9 times out of 10, he will not rob the store because he is afraid of getting shot. Here's another scenario. A crazy man is going to shoot up a school. Since most schools are gun free zones, he will be able to walk in and shoot as many kids ashe wants, and walk out uunscathed. The police will be called, but by the time they get there it will be too late. Now let's say that the security guard at that school is armed with a gun. The man will break into the school and promptly be shot by the security guard bwfore he can kill tons of kids. It is easy for you to say "just ban the guns then there won't be a problem." But what tou don't realize is that the bad guys will get guns anyway. All you will be doing is taking the guns out of the hands of the security guard and the cashier, so that you cannot defend against the bad guys.

(Please ignore any typos, I am typing from my phone)

tgags123 : let me give you this idea, some people DON'T CARE about their own lives. If I wanted to rob a store with a gun and the cashier is armed, I won't give a s***, I'll just the guy and walk out with some cash. Now I would never do that because I, not stupid, but some people don't care. Also, with the school thing, the security guy would have to have his gun concealed, so it will just be who can draw and shoot fastest. And most of the time, the crazy dude will already have his gun out, but just hidden from cameras.

Barathemos : In either case, I agree that it is up to whoever can shoot faster, assuming that the criminal doesn't just surrender (The majority of criminals admit that they would not have committed the crime that they comitted if they knew that the place they robbed or person they raped, etc was armed). But even if the person doesn't surrender and does managed to shoot faster (both unlikely), it will have the same outcome as it would if guns were banned. Only it would be evern easier for the criminal. So, in conclusion, the only time that the criminal wins is when he or she is crazy, doesn't care about his or her own life, and has super fast reflexes. But if you ban guns, the criminal wins every time.

Barathemos :

True, some people do NOT care

BUT

You had better have a way of defending yourself when that person DOES show up!

Criminal's also don't care that gun's are illegal just like anything else, they'll get ahold of anything they want.

Also, if we refuse to use weapons, then someone else will invent them and then beat us up.

Also MOST people DO care about there lives actually, (they DO have plans to spend that money once they've stolen it ya know! 3)

Having a gun does not gaurantee life, but with practice and wisdom, it DOES give you a high chance at success. a MUCH higher chance than NOT having a gun.

I would just like to point this out: