kennyg420 : It's actually better to conceal. Having your favorite handcannon strapped to your hip in plain view has potential to make you a target. If an attacker has to guess whether or not the puppy has teeth, they're more likely to feel you out. If it's on display, they can just get a cheap shot in from behind, steal your piece and fence it for a fix.

LunarDarkness2 : let me reiterate what I stated above: taking away legal firearms does not dry up the black market. A lot of people here are comparing the U.S. to certain Asian, Scandinavian and European countries where gun control has been fairly successful. The deciding factor in this debate is culture. The reason there aren't many guns in the countries that have all but banned them is because there's no demand. The people are OK with the idea of not having a gun and criminals look to other means to do what they do. In the U.S., there will ALWAYS be demand for firearms because it's part of our culture. If there's demand, there will always be someone more than happy to supply. Drugs are illegal, but people sell them and do them. Under age drinking is illegal, but teens get drunk and party all the time. Prostitution is illegal, but I think I can safely assume that there will always be entrepreneurial spirit, and that men will be men. The examples go on.

imamonster :
I WIn Also :

See my reply to Lunar.

m0ssb3rg935 :
Oldschool777 :

I've slightly changed my opinion on this based on what you all said. Instead of taking away firearms completely, let's try to not make them so freaking easy to get. It's not that hard to get a gun. We need thourough background checks and the like. Don't make guns so easy to obtain.

Lunar,I am glad to see that. As for what sparked this,that Orlando shooter,if people on a watch or suspect list are on it,they should not have a gun. When most people want to make guns harder to obtain,they make a criminal's job safer. Millions own guns and gasp...did nothing illegal with them.

LunarDarkness2 : See, I'm willing to compromise on that. Obviously, depending on what they were charged and/or convicted with, people with a criminal record shouldn't have a gun. There should also be a statute of limitation, though. If some jolly 65 year old that did something stupid in his youth want's to buy himself a scattergun to keep next to the recliner because he lives in a bad neighborhood or if he wants to buy himself something to go bag some game with in the winter, even a little pocket pea shooter to take with him to the food court down the road because he's an easy target, he should be able to. People with a long history of mental or emotional distress or instability, especially those who've been given certain kinds of medication, should be very, very, VERY thoroughly examined. However, my point still stands. It won't clean up Detroit or Chicago because people in that line of work couldn't give two craps less about what's illegal. Like I said, it's just occupational hazard.

Well i'd be arrested... simple as that in the UK

I honestly don't really have a strong for or against opinion honestly... Simply because most crime that is recorded is mostly down to poverty... or people that simply aren't in the right state of mind. 

If you grew up around a country that has gun control... Great... 
If you grew up around a country that didn't have gun control... Great..

It's not the weapon that makes a killer.. .It's the person themselves... 

Though if i was being completely truthful, If i saw someone walking around with a loaded gun.. It wouldn't make me feel safer.. it'd make me feel uneasy and unsafe... but that's just the culture i grew up with. 

Let's say it's illegal to carry a loaded gun. People who cannot legally carry a loaded gun will be defenseless against everyone who is carrying a loaded gun illegally.

If everyone or almost everyone, there wouldn't be mass shootings, because people would kill the shooter. 
This problem could also be fixed by having no one have guns.

However, both of these potential solutions have downsides:
If everyone has guns, killings would decrease, but I suspect abuse would occur and go under the radar of law enforcement.
If no one has guns, then if at some point the government oversteps its boundaries and takes control out of the hands of the people, then the people have no ability to fight the government. Also, the black market for guns would thrive, as well as be totally unregulated (similar to the illegal drug market). 

Personally, I have no opinion on whether guns should be universal or banned or regulated. I don't own guns, I would own a gun to keep in my house for protection, but I would not be totally disappointed if the government banned guns, though I would be highly suspicious. 

I am all up for guns and will start working in getting my gun as soon as possible. I want it to defend myself and my family and heck I don't trust this shady government not one bit they are all snakes and disgusting politicians. This isn't as bad as Venezuela but, certainly a concern of the lack of equal justice and privileges so, yes would like to have a few guns. However, I do think there are evil people out there that become extremely dangerous with a gun in hand. Those people have no  business carrying one ever. The only way to stop them is if you actually want to stop them which I don't see that happening in this country anytime soon. There a lot of senseless crimes going on and it's just sad but, I stand no chance against most human beings so the only thing giving me a chance of survival in any attack is a gun or other weapon. However, the more powerful the weapon the more restrictions it should have and should require a special psychological test to be passed before such weapon can be purchased and there should be a very clear and detailed reason as to why it was purchased,  when it was purchased, and where the money came from- it won't stop all psychos but, certainly something better than a 7 minute checkout of an automatic riffle. 

Ultrajeff : Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human, popping off 3 rounds in Joe's chest because he pulled a gun on someone is legal thus not murder. However, going into Joe's house at 3 a.m and unloading your .45 into his throat whilst he is asleep is. Think before you make a statement saying '(blank) is (blank)' when in reality it isn't.

So rude. Is that any way to speak with someone?

In a perfect society, everyone would be armed with a gun at all times. You can put all these regulations and restrictions in place but the bottom line is this: If a criminal wants to get a gun, they will. And if they decided to start shooting people, the only thing that can stop them is someone else at the scene that also has a gun. The average response time of a 911 call is 23 minutes. If no one else at the scene is armed, a shooter can do a lot of damage in 23 minutes. However if someone else at the scene IS armed, that 23 minutes shrinks to 23 seconds.

Guns are not only used to feed one's family, but also to protect yourself from the government and other threats both foreign and domestic. As for gun control I guess I'm on the fence about it. Should there be more background checks? (probably) But at the same time guns can still be bought illegally just as most street drugs are. Sure a machine guns isn't the proper tool for hunting, but it has its purpose elsewhere.
*Edit: Part of my original post wasn't there when I submitted, I dunno what happened*

jlove92 : I agree with your post mostly, but I do have a couple nitpicks. The psych tests would be a good idea, but it all depends on who's doing the testing. The whole thing with having to have a decent reason is also flawed in the same way as the psych tests in that a governing authority, likely the one that we're so distrusting of (and rightly so) could just turn around and move the goalpost. In an extreme (but not unthinkable) scenario, they could easily classify you as mentally unfit to own arms only for being a political opponent and say you haven't a good enough reason because they are in control of the standards. Also, it's technically "semi-automatic", but like I said, just a nitpick.

Ultrajeff : I can safely say that the only way you could gain propulsion through the discharge of a firearm would be to use something very, very powerful and unwieldy, and you'd likely hurt yourself in the process as a result of the ridiculously extreme recoil... However, your point was not lost on me. A better example would be that firearms are also used for recreational and competitive shooting.

When I was younger I always imagined I would get a license to carry and keep it with me always.
Now however I'm not so sure, guns cause so many problems in the United States, do I really want to contribute to the NRA by buying a gun?
On the other hand crime is rampant where I live, and having a gun would make me feel safer at night.

I guess that makes me neutral, however I'd personally rather not live in a gun owning Country we couldn't even take on our Government if we wanted to.

I think it's almost sad to say but it's starting to become a necessity in certain parts of America, especially at night. I'd rather not have to but I think I will end up carrying one eventually.