Out of curiosity and due to my sarcastic nature I made a comment earlier in a thread, and the comment was on many topics but the one that interested me most was a view on Gun control and why people see it's a problem that they want more regulations on guns and gun control.I mean is it too much to ask for a universal law in every state that individuals have to undergo background checks and psychological screenings to own and carry a gun?, is it too much to ask that maybe certain guns shouldn't be allowed to own/buy, such as an assault rifles and AK-37's, semi automatic shot guns and grenade launchers (Oh but you need them for hunting rabbits, and deer right?), is it too much to ask that maybe you shouldn't be allowed to buy/own anything bigger than an handgun/pistil to secure/protect your family and loved ones and for you deer hunters a hunting rifle with a scope?



But to bottom line it and (disregard my sarcasm), So my question to you all is what's the big deal about wanting more regulations on gun's given the gun violence seen today?,

Celestial Knight : Hoping AK-37 was a typo

At any rate, I don't usually discuss gun control because the debates really don't end. But I'll at least say that "I don't know, I blame stupid people". The crowd that wants to ban all of the firearms usually think its just this sticky thingy that goes boom and kills things, but since they don't understand how it works or understand the benefits of firearms, they just want to get rid of it.

When it comes down to it, the reason we don't have a universal law that makes background checks mandatory is because of stupid people.

Or maybe they just don't care since people will find illegal ways to buy firearms, idk. Too many possibilities.

Banning something doesn't make it go away. It only creates more government waste. If you want a grenade launcher I'm sure you could get one regardless of any laws. War on drugs ring a bell? Especially considering that the US has virtually no control over who or what enters the country anyways. Felons shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. Maybe put a limit on misdemeanors too. But the problem I have with psychological testing is who decides who's fit or not? Sure, there are the obvious cases, but there will be a gray area too. Too much opportunity for even more government corruption I say. And way more people are killed by handguns everyday anyways.

Celestial Knight : Terms such as "gun control" and "better regulation" are horribly vague.  Most positions on this subject matter are based very heavily on personal bias, so all I could do is offer observations and opinions. Why don't we start with specifically what you think should be done, and why it should be done?

m0ssb3rg935 : Alright,I feel as though every weapon bigger than a handgun should be made illegal to own (unless you are a licensed hunter in that case you may own a "hunting" rifle with a scope), I also think every state should have a mandatory background check and mandatory waiting period and psychological screenings. I feel this way because quite honestly individuals have shown time and time again that they aren't responsible enough to own such weapons after all how many school shootings, or public shootings in general have to happen before we ban such weapons entirely, what rational reason do you have to own a AR15 or Ak-47 your not the military your not in a war,they are just plain unnecessary to own in my opinion, if you need protection a simple handgun will suffice.

First and foremost, its late and this isn't going to be a very in-depth answer.

This isn't a question about hunting. It never has been...that is a talking point by ignorant gun control advocates that just want a reason to ban all the "scary" guns. Where does that end?

Perhaps you are being sarcastic, but you can't own a grenade launcher anyway.
Ferdinand hit the nail on the head. The government doesn't need more power...they have way too much already.

The reason for owning an AR15 (besides its fun to shoot), is that its a very simple weapon that basically anyone can use.
Its accurate, it has low recoil, its modular/customizable....the list goes on.

I assume you have never fired a handgun...you might change your mind if you look at your target and see you haven't hit it at all...add stress to that and possibly someone shooting back? Good luck...

Celestial Knight : First of all, there are, and don't take this the wrong way, numerous misconceptions that these proposals heavily lean on. I'm going to address each of these in order.

Banning all long guns, excepting hunting rifles with licensing.

There are very many handguns that are similar to, and in several cases, outclass rifles and shotguns in power. Examples of these massively powerful pistol rounds include, but are not limited to the .454 Casull, .475 Linebaugh, .480 Ruger, .460 Smith & Wesson Magnum, .50 Action Express and .500 Smith & Wesson Magnum. All of which come close to, if not surpass, the kinetic energy generated by the 5.56x45 NATO, which is the standard military rifle cartridge for armies the world over, and is used in the AR-15. So in short, "bigger," does not necessarily mean stronger. In addition, there are many people who are uncomfortable with the amount of recoil that comes from something as small and light as a pistol, and moving down in the cartridge list lowers the effectiveness of the pistol greatly, making carrying a firearm at all redundant. Hypothetically, would you carry something cold, rigid and cumbersome if you weren't even sure you could stop a threat with it? I would also point out that no one has ever robbed a bank with an M1 Garand. Why? Because a 3 lb 9mm is a whole lot easier to sneak into a building than a 43.5 inch, 9.5 lb battle rifle chambered in a cartridge capable at killing at a half mile is.

Mandatory background checks, waiting periods and psychological screenings.

I, myself, am not against mandatory background checks. In fact, I think that, if you were going to implement something like this, it would need great expansion. As of yet, a background check only entails what crimes you have already been convicted of. What about visits to a psychiatrist or marriage counseling? What about anger management classes? How about prescription medication such as anti depressants-psychotics? All of this would need to be factored in. That is, if the concept was not fundamentally flawed. Let's take a look at the Sandy Hook shooting. Adam Lanza was autistic and had a long record of violent tendencies and behaviour. By the proposed standards, he would have NEVER been able to acquire a firearm by going through the process. Instead, all he had to do was shoot his mother in the face, and the contents of the safe were his. The solution may seem simple enough. Mandatory psychiatric evaluation of the whole family. Let's just throw the part about that being totally intrusive out the window and talk about necessity and money. I personally don't see why I have to "need" something just to have it, nor can I see a way to get an unbiased result on who establishes what a need is. Even forgoing that, the people most likely to need a firearm for protection are in crime infested, extremely poor locations, and can barely afford the gun and the ammo to practice with, let alone pay for a trip to a shrink for the entire family. At this point, the only way this could work is to start another government subsidy program for very low income families, paid for by taxes taken from people already struggling, and loans from china that we could never hope to pay back. I think Ammo Stamps has a catchy ring to it though.

The deeper question is: Is there more gun violence now or do we simply see more of it because of the connectivity of the news, the internet, and information?

I don't know if you, Celestial, are American or not and your age says 18 so you weren't alive in the early 90s when there were all sorts of riots going on in L.A.

You weren't around the 1980s and 1990s but gun violence in New York, St. Louis, south Chicago, L.A. and Miami was worse than it is now.

I can show stats that tell a story where a majority of homicides are committed by pistols, not rifles or assault weapons.  And those numbers can get fuzzy.

Americans are big on individual rights.  We've gone to war over rights on more than one occasion.  And it's our self-appointed right to own firearms.

And let's do some math.  How many people die from heart disease and poor diets?  We're not banning cheese.  How many people die from drunk driving (I have two friends who were killed by drunk drivers) and the penalties for DUI are not particularly aggressive.  How many terrorist attacks have been committed by Muslims?  We're not condemning the entire religion.  Well, some people are and those people are idiots.

The point is: There will always be ways for people to commit violence.  If not a gun, they'll get something else.  If not legally, they'll own illegal firearms.

I won't go into the theory of a well-armed civilian population but it's our right to own what we want, with respect to others.  

Unfortunately a tiny percentage don't respect others.

Look,you can make all the universal background checks you want,but will that stop someone from snapping? No. Do you know what the gun laws protect? Criminals. Criminals do not care for gun laws,they get them illegally. Guns are not the people,stupid people are the problem. There is no easy answer,there is no easy way to fix it. Background checks are fine in of itself,but that does not mean that another shooting will not take place.

Read this article,this would make a bit more sense.

http://mic.com/articles/22835/gun-control-facts-detroit-crime-rate-is-the-result-of-gun-control#.YBlGqIgJ7

Now,you might think I am crazy that I wave the 2nd Amendment flag,but firearms won our freedom and secure it. What needs to be done is people actually teaching kids about guns,gun safety,and they are not toys. If we educate people on the proper use of a firearm,that would help significantly.

Guns are not a problem,idiots are the problem.

A man killed and injured several people in a Planned Parenthood with an AK-47 Friday the twenty-seventh.

And don't bother posting questions like these since it will attract all the gun nuts who think that guns are something useful and will cry if their guns are taken away.


1. Gun nuts will complain about how banning guns will give the government more power, whether by expansion of the government or by taking away their "way to fight back against a tyrannical government."

It's all a load of horse apples. One thing is that a majority of the government WANTS to keep guns in the hands of the little people since it acts as a pacifier to stop the little people from complaining while their rights and ability to survive as Americans are slowly taken from them.
And then what makes anyone think that Americans could rise up and do anything against a government if something should happen? Most of the people who own guns are a tad crazy middle-aged overweight folks who've never been in a combat situation. Sure they might "practice" a lot, which means shoot at animals or targets or some sort, but none of them would ever be able to hold up against a trained military!

2. They will post some spurious things about hunting, how other things kill people, and how if criminals want guns then criminals will end up with them anyway.

Hunting is not necessary in this country. A person can go down to the local grocery or chain store and get meat any day of the week. Hunting is not beneficial in any way and just gives opportunities for hunters to get killed.

Yes, obesity can lead to death, yes drunk driving can kill people, and yes terrorists can kill people but guns are made to kill. that's the only reason to have one.

Obesity doesn't kill others while guns do. Drunk driving is a combination of two different things, alcohol and cars so it doesn't relate top guns. Alcohol is terribly bad for the body while cars are a necessity is many parts of this country. Fewer terrorists kill Americans than Americans do so this point is moot.

Gun nuts will all ways come up with various false and misleading reasons why banning guns is a bad idea but they're fine with all sorts of other things that are more detrimental to the country.

NameEntry : you lost the moment you labeled anyone who doesn't want gun restrictions as nuts.

I'm pro gun control, apparently that's a really controversial opinion here and in the US but in the rest of the industrialized world not so much. I don't understand the logic how people think lower gun control is going to help against crime. Less gun control only makes it easier for potential criminals to get guns, you see news about school shootings and stuff in the US all the time, meanwhile we just had our first ever act of terrorism in a school and it wasn't even with a gun, it was a guy going around with a sword, you know why? Because we have laws banning guns from public use making them a lot harder to get, hence that guy ended up causing far less damage than he could have. The guns criminals get primarily come from stores which legally sell them, while in other countries they wouldn't have been able to.

I mean okay I can see the problem here since the US, has long been a country where guns are easy to get hence it's not as black and white and suddenly just banning them wouldn't just immediately stop their circulation (even if that's a problem caused by them being legal in the first place...) and I wont suggest that either, but I don't get why at least increasing restrictions a lot more and increasing requirements to prevent people who aren't responsible enough to own one is such a problem. People keep waving the second amendment but at the time that was written they didn't really have a police force the size of today, and people lived a lot more openly with crimes being a lot easier to commit. So in that sense you have to look at it in relation to when it was written as well.

People kill people yes, but killing other people is hell of a lot easier when guns are so easily available.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-facts-that-neither-side-wants-to-admit-about-gun-control/207152/

See above article. Seems to be a more intelligent way to look at the issue. Gun control didn't reduce murder rates in 3 countries that have recently (within 20 years) enacted gun control measures (I believe full on gun bans). Murder rates didn't sway in either direction.

The article also makes a much more intelligent point about violence and connects it with poverty and education rather than guns. I read a story recently about a knife attack in China that killed over 50 people and injured another 50 or so. Easier to do with a gun? Yes. Still possible with a knife or other weapons. Yes.

In the end it isn't the weapon we need to remove but the reason for the violence. If we ignore why people are doing these things and instead just focus on the tool they use we won't solve any problems and simply waste a lot of time and money fighting the problem from the wrong angle.

NameEntry : First of all, we are having an unbiased, intelligent discussion here for the purpose of mutual education, so the name calling, belittling and out right attack of anyone with an opposing opinion is not only uncalled for, but juvenile and contributes nothing. Fact: disarmament of the civilian population DOES give government more power. School bullies are bigger and stronger, so they are able to push just about anyone they want around, as long as they are weak. Are you really suggesting that, not just a government, but ANY human out there, would not be tempted with limitless rule over another? Are you really suggesting that, even if it starts out with great and noble intent, something with authority has in mind the best interest of those below them or a greater good? Humanity by nature is avaricious and sociopathic. Big business is corrupt. Big government is corrupt. Big ANYTHING can, and will be, corrupted by man. The only thing that can make people equal is even distribution of power. Wait, isn't that what law is for? Law is a joke! You know who makes law? People of authority. You know who bends and twists law to their liking? People of authority. Law and government may start out with the primary focus of "national unity" and "to protect and serve," but will never be on the side of the real nation, the population.

"Most of the people who own guns are a tad crazy middle-aged overweight folks who've never been in a combat situation. Sure they might "practice" a lot, which means shoot at animals or targets or some sort, but none of them would ever be able to hold up against a trained military!" I'm going to assume you have never done any reading on the battle of the Alamo. Stories vary from person to person and are also dependant upon where you are. The story here in Tennessee is that it was 100 Tennessee volunteers against the whole Mexican army, while other stories say that it was 200 people against 2000 Mexican regulars. Regardless of the version, it did happen, and the fact that as little as 200 hill-billies holed up in a small building held off as many as 2000 Mexican soldiers with cavalry and canons for two weeks before being defeated is an incredible feat. Things are much different now. People are far better educated in such rural areas compared to then. Many retired military personnel train their family. A great many people can reload their own spent ammo, some of them being creative enough reuse spent primers with match heads and cast bullets with wheel weight materials. Make light of them all you like, the half cracked, over weight zero experience redneck cave man can be quite the formidable force.

Zlinqx : geeo's article sums it up quite nicely. Pandora's box was the perfect analogy for gun circulation in the U.S. It would be akin to trying to ban pigs so people wont get fat by eating bacon. If they think it can be done, more power to them, no play on words intended.

geeogree : Actually, you're wrong. I didn't post anything about people who don't want gun restriction as nuts, the people who carry a weapon on them or post pictures of themselves with freaking rebel flags and let their kids use guns are the nuts. People who refuse to act rationally and just cry about being oppressed and say the government is out to get them are the gun nuts.





There's a difference between not wanting gun control and guns being the center of a person's life.

m0ssb3rg935 : You're so very wrong, sir. Yes, the Alamo did happen and I'm not disputing that, but the world has changed by thousands of degrees since that happened. Choosing to bring up the Alamo in this situation is frankly intellectually dishonest. Americans are NOT how they were two hundred something years ago. The military has weapons, armor, and very accessories that far outweigh anything some civilian with an AK-47 could do. The average American is obese while the people in the Alamo were in tip top shape since their lives depended on it.

Being able to reuse ammo has nothing to do with any of this and there's no evidence available on the internet stating that ex-military trains family members and that has nothing to do with anything. 

The only real counter-argument is that the Alamo happened two hundred years ago and yet again, that means nothing now.

NameEntry : "Gun nuts will all ways come up with various false and misleading reasons why banning guns is a bad idea but they're fine with all sorts of other things that are more detrimental to the country." YOU SAID THAT.

I responded with this "you lost the moment you labeled anyone who doesn't want gun restrictions as nuts."

If you can't be honest when you debate then you won't be allowed to debate anymore.

NameEntry : OK, if something more recent needs to be used as an example, then let's take Vietnam into account. How many soldiers did we have over there? How many people were on the opposing side? The Vietnamese were vastly outnumbered and WON. All they had were AK-47's, which are very limited in their accuracy and range, and left over WWII soviet junk. They had bamboo spike pits and tripwire grenades. We had M-16's, M-60's, napalm, bombs, grenade launchers, tanks, fighters, AND TRAINING. Home field advantage makes a huge difference. Also, not to stray to far off topic, but what's wrong with the battle flag of the army of northern Virginia?