Do we really need more gun control?

I vigorously support the Second Amendment, but think that gun laws need to be a common sense issue, not a knee jerk reaction to ban guns, or to arm everyone either. We should start by REALLY enforcing the ones we have now. Most gun violence is committed by people who have obtained their firearms outside of legal constraints.

We can reduce gun violence by restoring order and discipline to our society. People need to be made accountable for their actions. Americans need to accept responsibility for their own lives. People who commit crimes (especially gun crimes) need to be in prisons, not being coddled, or protected to the point it seems like they are victims. We ALL have a choice to obey the law or not. If you choose to violate, you need to pay the price. And we need to stop treating the privacy rights of dangerous mental cases as more important that the safety of normal Americans. Re-open the insane asylums they closed thirty years ago. Lets stop rewarding immoral behavior and paying to support an untold population of illegitimate children.

I have been a Police officer for over 40 years. I have seen armed citizens lawfully protect themselves. I have also seen licensed persons get disarmed, and that let another bad guy out on the street with a gun. Common Sense. I wish it was a law

Your logic is wrong. Chicago is still connected to the same land that Texas is connected to. They may go by different names, but they are still the same place. It's imaginary lines that divide them. There is nothing stopping you from driving with a gun from Texas to Chicago and back. No checkpoints, no borders to cross, no airport security. Just your car, your trunk full of guns, and the open road from Chicago to Texas. Imaginary lines between the two. So Chicago's laws are pointless unless the whole country does the same thing as a whole. Plus Chicago has more poverty, so of course there will be more violence there no matter what you do.

Also, the current gun control debate was sparked because of massacres (4 or more people being shot at a school, or an office, etc.), not because of your every day average shootings and killings (the type that make up the statistics you're talking about). It's already been proven that gun control reduces or stops these types of incidents. You can't argue with that because Australia and England both put gun control in place after they got sick of having massacres in the 90s. Since the 1990s (since they put this gun control into effect in both countries), they have had a combined total of ONE massacre since then, and the shooter in that massacre was one of the few people left that was LEGALLY allowed to own a gun. USA, on the other hand, continues to have at least FIVE massacres or more like this every single year. Gee, do you think there could be some type of connection???

Yes you do. If there were no form of gun control whatsoever, gang members would be buying guns all the time. I mean some people are educated so badly by NRA pamphlets that they actually think that gun control is "evil". Again, gun control is not for disarming citizens, it's trying to stop guns from falling in the wrong hands. About 100,000 people are rejected annually. Does the NRA tell you that? No they do not. The reasons the FBI lists why people get rejected are felony or serious misdemeanor(about half of them), 1/10 have a history of domestic violence and stalking and assault(making threats), severe mental problems, about 10,000 fugitives are not allowed to buy guns. We lack a tracking system and that's possibly the biggest problem out there. Because of lax gun laws in Texas, many people will buy bulks of guns and scratch off the serial number and sell them. The first source lists gun-related deaths. California is NOT at the top, that's a myth. Some sources will list as California as number three in terms of gun-related crimes. But remember, crimes are subjective rather than objective. Illinois is 31st on that list, meaning they had less gun-related deaths than Texas. Also most of the top states on that list are notorious for having lax gun laws.

The second source lists my major state. In that category, New York and Los Angeles come at the top. The explanation for this is that not only are they the most populous cities in the nation, they also account for a large portion of their respective states' crimes. If we were to subtract the cities from the statistics of the state, states like California would be even lower in the gun related deaths section. However, New Orleans in comparison, has very small numbers, which would then keep Louisiana around its current position.

I know many people with disagree with me, but if you look at the facts, which are there, then there is no reason to hold a bias. By the way I still have a whole lot more of research, which would easily dispel many myths about guns and gun control. Many states still remain far behind accepted gun control levels. Some states give out guns as if there were no problem.

Civilians carry guns to protect from criminals. Criminals notice, and buy guns to over-power civilians.

Civilians are unarmed. Criminals see no need to spend money on guns to over-power civilians.

Have a little read at the following article about how Japan handles guns.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international%E2%80%A6

Now I'm not going to endorse stereo-typing, but it is generally believed that the Japanese people are quite intelligent. I mean Honda, a Japanese car company DID design ASIMO, the closest thing we have to Sci-Fi level robots. If they can find a way to take gun crime down to 2 homicides a year, why can't Staters? The problem is the US constitution. Rather than outlaw them completely then work on exceptions, they allow everyone, then narrow it down. This is the opposite of other countries where gun crime is relatively low such as Japan and the UK.

In this Wikipedia article, it displays 75 countries and their firearm death rate, dividing them into several categories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cou%E2%80%A6

The United States of America is 10th for highest death rate at 10.2 per 100,000.

In contrast, the United Kingdom, where gun control is very strict and regulated, is 66th, with 0.25 per 100,000.

Finally we have Japan, at 74th, with 0.07 per 100,000.

Those numbers, if kept at the same constant rate, would mean that it would take about 15 years for one Japanese person to die from gun related crime. In those 15 years, 3 people would have died in the UK, and in the US 153 people would have died. Keeping in mind this is per 100,000.

I am aware that some crimes go unreported in some countries, but even at the cultural difference of the US and Japan, the US and UK cultures are rather similar, so reported crimes vs unreported crimes would be similar.

As far anyone paranoid the government want to enslave you, which I have seen A LOT of, they could turn you and your home into a hole in the ground if they wanted to. Your colt.45 would be put to better use if you shoot yourself than try to take out a gunship or tank.

Let the "rootin tootin waild westurs" thumb me down. They only thumb me down because I have evidence rather than a loud opinion.

No, we don't need mo0re control, because the criminals will ignore it just as they already do the more than 22,000 gun laws already on the books in the US. The liberals should wet their pants in a brown suit. It will also give them a nice warm feeling and will accomplish about what the new regulations they are proposing will, in short, nada, zilch, bupkus. Of course, the liberals are not smart enough to see that. After all, they cannot understand "shall not be infringed."

@Ed, Schindler's List was about the Nazis of WWII. Do you really want to use them as the model of what we should have here? The Founding Fathers despised and feared a strong central government, having just kicked the krap out of one. The Second Amendment is what protects the rest of the amendments from a despotic government. Most people are unaware that Japan planned to invade the USA in WWII. The Japanese knew of our Second Amendment and the numbers of guns in private hands. The plan was cancelled because the Japanese figured they would have all of the armed citizens to contend with, not just our military.

Austin isn't safe because of lenient gun laws, it's safe because Texas has sensible gun laws and. a strict CHL application process.

no we need to find a way to fix the stupidity of the facebook generation no one bothers to learn anything for themselves they just "google it" and learn nothing

and when they "google it" they may not find the truth but what is the most popular ideological answer possible.

the problem is not guns it is education and the fact that most people believe they can solve all their problems with a magic pill and the internet. when that doesn't work they get depressed and you know the rest.

The answer is to enforce the laws on the books and not infringe on the rights of lawful citizens. I have an assault rifle with many 40 round clips and it makes me feel safe. The liberals want to get rid of all guns period. Then they can freely grow the government as they please and say good bye to your rights. We currently have the right to form militias and we should do so especially on our southern border and open fire on any foreign invaders who are armed.

sigh..........we do, but exactly what works is the problem. Criminals buy guns illegally. How to stop that? No idea. Handguns kill fat more on a day to day basis than assault rifles, but they're focusing on the assault rifles. Background checks should be mandatory everywhere, gun shows and pawn shops and the mentally ill and criminals shouldn't be allowed to buy guns legally. So that part I agree with.

And even the NRA doesn't have a problem with the background checks.

two hands is enough control for me. Unless laws can keep criminals and gangs from obtaining guns, more laws will prevent nothing. background checks without mental evaluations are equally absurd.