Do we need tougher gun control laws?

First you main argument, "I think that people can own guns for hunting and other sporting activities, but it is ridiculous for civilians to own Ak 47s and other automatic weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible." is flawed.

You see any weapon or object can kill many people very quickly. Based on that argument alone we could prevent thounsands of deaths a year if we ban cars and other motor vehicles. We also must define "Automatic Weapons." Automatic weapons are extremely hard to get. You have to fill out a ton of BATF and government paperwork, have local or county police cheif sign off on that said paperwork that the automatic firearm is legal to obtain in the area. You must pass a background check, be fingerprinted and have the large sum of money for the firearm and the tax stamp needed and must have a legal reason for wanting to obtain one.

A semi-automatic which is mostly available to all LAW ABIDING and non-criminal US resident must also have a clean record, background check, and fill out paperwork to purchase. Semi-auto AK-47 are not the same as fully automatic AK-47s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw&feature...

And if even a few of those people at VT or other "GUN FREE ZONES" would have been allowed to carry 32 might have been alot less.

Now what about the gun laws....wait any law that CRIMINALS break. If they are willing to kill for no good reason then carrying a gun illegally will not stop them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0vyxgJLJVA

http://www.youtube.com/user/DOUGandFRIENDS

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson

Gun Control Defined.......

A theory espoused by some people; who claim to believe, that a violent predator who ignores the laws prohibiting them from robbing, raping, kidnapping, torturing and killing their fellow human beings will obey a law telling them that they cannot own a gun.

Just remember. Chicago has a handgun ban in its city limits yet over 500 people were killed in 2008.

No. There were probably 30 or so murders committed last night in inner city neighborhoods and none of them were committed with legal firearms. When you start putting limits on legal gun ownership, that gives the government -- a government like we have now especially with Obama and Eric Holder -- the right to deny legal gun ownership. It does nothing to stop illegal guns. Those big NRA supporters and the people at gun shows? They're not the ones that committed those murders last night. This was done in South Africa, a bill almost exactly like what's been proposed in Congress right now, and they denied all the applications. All it did was disarm the law-abiding public. It didn't stop crime -- South Africa, once a thriving Western successful country, is now led by Marxists and the most violent country on earth. The USA has had the right to bear arms for over 200 years. We don't need to change the law -- we need to change the people who can't handle the freedom of owning guns without killing everything in sight.

Lol maybe you should actually get informed before you form an opinion huh? No American, with the exception of a few with a class 3 liscence are allowed to own an Automatic Weapon. What you are talking about are semi automatic civilian versions of military rifles. Shouldn't you at least know what you are talking about before you rant?

As for owning one...semi auto carbines loaded with frangible ammo(breaks up when it hits something solid like a wall) are excellent for self defense in the home. They are also very fun to shoot, and me and some friends go shooting at a range and have contests, rather then sit at home drinking beer and watching football. "assault weapons" are used in less then 1% of firearms related crimes. They are very hard to conceal.

It is not my personnel pleasure to own a semi auto, it is my right. It is my right to have the means to defend my family at 3:00 in the morning, when the average 911 response time where I live is 5 to 6 minutes. As for the 1000's killed each year....half of all firearms deaths are suicides. Far more people are killed in car crashes each year then by firearms.

5 times more children ages 1-10 drown each year then are shot, so shouldn't we ban pools and lakes first, or at least make swimming lessons required? That would save more lives then anything.

Lets put some of the blame for Pittsburg on the 911 operator who was informed there were guns in the house, yet didn't inform the responding officers. That's fair isn't it?

As for VT, what might have happened if there had been legally armed students and teachers. the body count would have been far less. Why do you think that 95% of mass shootings take place in gun free zones?

How about blaming the shooters parents for not getting him help? How about some of the blame going to the school system that lets kids be bullied until they feel they have no other option?

A gun is a tool, just like any other tool. I could leave a fully loaded gun sit out, and it may as well be a paperweight until someone picks it up.

And very few of the 20,000 gun laws we have already are enforced or people prosecuted. Why pass other laws that criminals will simply ignore.

Please get the facts and educate yourself.

NOPE...would help if they enforced the ones

all ready on the books...

None of those people you mentioned

were killed with an Automatic Weapon...

Sorry,about Pittsburgh and those Three

Police Officers getting Killed...

That was also very PREVENTABLE...

The Dispatcher FAILED TO INFORM

the Officers that he was ARMED...

So in hind site the Dispatcher KILLED THEM...

Sent them into an Ambush "FULLY AWARE

THAT THE ASSAILANT WAS ARMED"...

Hope they charge the Dispatcher with at Least

"CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE"...

You can get on here and scream all you want

about Gun Control...but at least give all of the

True Facts, so intelligent people can make up

their own mines...

99% of all GUN deaths are by Criminals and

they already don't care about Gun Laws or any

Human on the Planet...they will always get guns.

Do you realize you stand more of a Chance

getting killed by a Criminal with a Gun in Pittsburgh

and Chicago than in Iraq or Afghanistan...

Until those so called dead beat politician's and

upper management Police officers stop hiding

and get out there and actually confront these

low life's...nothing will change...

That is what the PA National Guard is for...

"GUN CONTROL IS BEING ABLE TO HIT YOUR TARGET" !!

If by tougher gun laws you mean enforcing the 2nd amendment and actually legalizing automatic weapons, instead of living in a world where only psychopaths and tyrants have access to them, then, yes.

Or, if you mean tougher laws controlling politicians who would attempt to further infringe upon American citizens' rights to keep and bear arms, then yes.

What do you think that amendment is for? Game hunting???

The original intention was that FREE HUMAN BEINGS in a FREE SOCIETY should have access to ANY WEAPON that any national military has access to, otherwise there is nothing left standing between citizenry and enslavement.

Read ur history.

No. Were the criminals who committed the crimes you cited obeying our current gun laws? If they were, I'd consider it. I suspect that they weren't obeying the laws we already have. So who is going to be effected by more gun laws? The law-abiding citizens. The criminals would still break the laws and the only thing that would change is taking freedom away from law-abiding citizens. If criminal is currently disregarding our laws, how is making more laws going to change this situation?

If you post links that say that these criminals were obeying our current gun laws and I'll be happy to edit my answer.

Edited to add:

You say that he purchased his guns legally but you didn't provide me any source. So I've been looking and I can't find any. I did see where Richard Poplawski "is charged with a violation of firearms laws. Braverman's says in purchasing guns there, Poplawski represented on his application that he had not been dishonorably discharged from the military." He was dishonorably discharged for a violent offense.

Since you know that these guns were legally purchased and owned, I wish you would simply post your sources. I'm trying to verify them but there is no reason for me to do all of this searching since you say you "know" it to be fact.

Sigh...I'll keep looking for your sources.

That is possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Guns are in no way shape or form related to crime. If you were actually concerned about saving people's lives you would be saying that cars should be outlawed. Cars accidents have killed more people than all the wars combined together.

Guns, Swords, brass knuckles, fists, feet, are all owned and operated by people. I like to fight for fun, and I can defend myself, I like owning swords and axes and knives for fun, and I can defend myself with them, and I like owning Guns for fun, and I can defend myself. I am in America and I use my Guns to protect me from dirty pieces of Garbage.

Logically break down what you are saying.

"Tougher gun laws to stop people being killed by guns!"

But, What would passing a law do to prevent crime? It's called crime because the actor in the crime doesn't obey the law. So how would creating a law to control one that doesn't obey laws work?

None of it makes any sense, and hopefully walking yourself through that piece of logic remedies your misinformed thoughts.

Unless you have a special permit you CANNOT own a fully automatic weapon, the AK47 's sold to Americans are more or less replicas of the real thing, they are SEMI-automatic just like the hunting type of rifles, so if they are made illegal because of cosmetics, then hunting rifles would be illegal also

I personally think American should be able to have the same type small arm that the military uses, when the Constitution was written the army and civilians both had muzzle loaders and were even, now the military has an unequal advantage over the civilians, with their full auto small arm weapons*************

I think that when people talk about assault weapons and more gun laws,even though they say not , they really want to see all guns baned. I am a gun owner but I do not hunt ,I had enough of killing many years ago, but I do enjoy target shooting. My guns pose no threat to any one unless they try to break in my home and harm my family. So I wont insist that people who enjoy base ball or hockey give up their base ball bats and hockey sticks because some one could use them as a weapon if they let my guns alone. For you gun owners look up HR 45

NO, It won't happen in TEXAS. We'll suceed from the union first. Your talking about semi auto weapons. Not fully auto. You have to have a class 2 license and be investigated by law enforcement and a fee of $ 200.00 per year to own any silencer or automatic weapon. There are people who can shoot a revolver faster than an automatic.