Am I pro or anti gun?

Clearly anti-gun. Stricter gun laws cannot possibly result in less crime. Laws do not prevent crime. Clear enough? If the City of Aurora had not effectively banned concealed carry, then it would not have been an open invitation for someone to come on in an murder as many as he could, without any fear of running into someone who could stop him.

When they banned firearms in the City of London the violent crime rate went up 10,000 percent, according to the Wall Street Journal. Of course, such a "ban" in the USA would require shredding most of the Bill of Rights (Amendments, 2, 4, 5, etc), and numerous state constitutions as well.

If the police have high-powered weapons then, by definition, the civilians should (must) be authorized to have exactly the same weapons, under the Second Amendment, not to mention various state constitutional protections of the right to bear arms in self-defense.

Anti. I could say you don't "need" a lot of things either.

Sensible I would say

You are reasonably sensible. The AR15 type rifle should only be in the possession of the military. WHether or nt they are technically assualt rifles is a matter of debate, but any war weapon capable of killing a lot of people in a very short time should only be in military hands Those weapons are only useful for killing a lot of people quickly.

Banning thos would cut down on needless deaths in America.

The nonsese about a tryrannical government was about the situation in 1750 or thereabouts when they wanted to get rid of the British. They wanted to have a state militia ready to be called up at short notice. The second amendment is completely out of date.

Only the military have assault rifles. Words mean things. To be an assault rifle the gun must be capable of selective fire. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle,. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine. It must have an effective range of at least 300 meters (330 yards). None of the weapons used in the shooting you list are assault rifles. .Rifles such as the AR15 used at Parkland are not assault rifle they are semi automatic rifles. At Columbine many of the people were killed with shotguns not rifles..

Private citizens already cannot own assault rifles. What makes a rifle an assault rifle?

An assault rifle can be set to automatic and function as a light machine gun. No legal gun sold today can do that. You are afraid of a scary appearance. Google Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. This gun shoots the exact same bullets as the guns you think are assault rifles but it is not scary.

Pro gun.

Most gun owners dont want or need assault rifles either.

However, I dont agree with "only the military"..

Let me explain.

The second amendment was not written with the idea of hunting or protecting your home from intruders. It was written with the notion that citizens could form a militia and protect themselves from a government overthrow or to protect ourselves from war happening on our land.

Militia is not the military... Its a group of organized citizens ready to defend.

Knowing this, you can understand why some are oppossed to such severe gun restrictions.

You have bought into the lie. There is no such thing as an 'assault' rifle. It's a media-created term intended to demonize semi-automatic rifles. Any gun is no more an 'assualt' weapon than a butter knife is an 'assault' weapon. It is the person with the weapon, not the weapon itself.

To ban semi-automatic rifles and hand guns that are capable of firing more than an ever-shrinking number of rounds (due to increasingly-restrictive limits on magazine capacity) is to punish the vast majority of Americans who don't have murderous intent.

With freedom comes responsibility, and living in a free society means there is always the risk of evil-doers doing something. It's a price I'm willing to pay. If you completely banned all guns (in violation of the 2nd Amendment), there might indeed never be another mass shooting. There would also be no effective way to stand up to a tyrannical and oppressive government.

But there would also be no end to mass killings. Take away the guns and evil-doers will find some other way. Some sociopath in high school that wants revenge will just teach themselves to make a bomb out of commonly-available stuff. Or you'll start seeing acid attacks becoming more widespread.

So, what do you ban next, after the guns are gone and we must now rely COMPLETELY on our government masters for our safety?

Pro-Common Sense.