Gun Control, FOR or AGAINST? Thoughts?

FOR: controlling weapons you own: employing them effectively and safely, discharging them in public only in just self defense and retaining them and taking reasonable precautions to prevent their theft or access by those one does not authorize.
AGAINST: any infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (this is a key provision of a document I swore to support and defend).

If the government simply banning something is the solution to the social problems for which that something is blamed, why does this nation have a drug problem? Gun control will never work as advertised because it fails in principle which leads to a failure in practice. In principle, gun control is the same as any prohibitionary measure in that it’s based on an inferred relationship, an alleged if-then that doesn’t hold true. IF the government restricts or eliminates the legal traffic in something, so the ‘logic’ goes, THEN the criminality associated with that something will be decreased or eliminated. However, the real world says differently which disproves this ‘principle.’

Anybody who’s been around other human beings for more than 5 minutes knows that just banning something won’t eliminate people wanting it, i.e. demand. And anybody who paid attention for the first 5 minutes of Economics 101 knows that where demand exists, suppliers will emerge whether what is demanded is illegal or not. Moreover, last time I checked, the dictionary definition of a criminal is a person who disobeys the law so to expect them to hold gun control laws in any less contempt than all the other laws they break is folly of the first order.

Nor do criminals like getting shot any more than anybody else. That's why it’s relatively rare to hear about crimes committed against heavily protected targets, they're usually guarded by men with guns who can shoot the criminals. Guess what, the same deterrent effect applies to an armed citizenry as well. In a shall-issue state, a criminal has no way of knowing if the little old lady he wants to rob is packing a .38 and will put a bullet into him if he attempts to rob her.

But in places with strict gun control, that deterrent doesn't exist. It’s for this reason that cities like Chicago, Detroit and D.C. have both the strictest gun control laws and the highest rates of crime, not just gun crime in particular but violent crime in general. It’s not IN SPITE of their gun control but BECAUSE OF IT.

my gun control is gun training. train the public and educate them how to use and store it. done

My knee jerk reaction to gun control is "HELL NO", but if I take a breath and think for a moment, I'm actually very much for it.

I don't think felons, people with alcohol or drug arrests (it indicates an addiction that is out of control to the point of irresponsibility), felons, mentally ill, sex offenders, etc would make "responsible gun owners". I would also like to see legislation that makes offering a free firearm class mandatory with the purchase of a weapon (I've seen too many unsafe and incompetent people at the range lately).

Now that said, I would like to see more gun freedom to people who have demonstrated themselves to be responsible gun owners. I don't think someone should have to get a Class III federal firearms license to own a M2 browning for instance. If someone can pass CHL requirements I think they should be able to carry anywhere, any state, and I think the debate over magazine size and the color of a gun is insulting... wars have been affected by a trained man with a single shot .30-06.

It isn't more laws we need, but the current ones enforced. Mandatory gun training should also be the standard for getting a concealed carry. I know open carry is allowed without a permit so it would be difficult to enforce that. Unless you made that permit based also, which would be a crap storm all in itself. Education is needed not more laws.

I believe gun control is paramount... proper aim and breathing will give you a one shot one kill ratio ever time...https://www.facebook.com/JerrysOutdoorSports/videos/ [login to see] 61691/?fref=nf

Gun control does very little in combating crime. As in the chart a hand gun ban went into affect in 1982 in Chicago. In 1992 homicides by shooting peaked only to be topped by 1974 numbers. The current downtrend is due to a heavier police presence.

Additionally guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. So based purely on cost/benefit of saving lives guns are still on the plus side.

I am for gun control in the same sense that we license people to own and operate motor vehicles. I grew up with guns, I learned their safe operation and use before I learned how to drive a car (I also learned how to drive a tractor before learning how to drive a car).

Currently a day at the range is a little scary for me, there's one just a few miles from my house, and I'm more afraid of getting shot there than I was in Desert Storm... Why? Because there's a ton of people that know nothing of firearms except what they see in the movies, and there's bullet holes in the firing position dividers to underscore that point.

No, you can't stop people with malicious intent from obtaining guns, and even if you could, Cain killed Abel with a rock, but gun control discussion sure spurs gun sales.

Bottom Line: I'm OK with certain forms of gun qualification, but in general, much looser gun control. The more effective means to dealing with gun crime is tougher enforcement of the CRIMINAL, not the citizen and not the gun manufacturer.

I'm OK with current prohibited persons.(felons, restraining orders, mentally ill, etc.) I'm NOT OK with each state using creative license to interpret the Constitution.

There should be a more uniform law governing all states. (No magazine capacity limits, magazine safeties, various "cooling off" times, no ban on NV/IR) Wait periods should only be as long as it takes to either verify background, or if there is a card that verifies qualifications that is renewed annually or every couple years, that would preclude the need for a waiting period.

There SHOULD be better enforcement of laws that are already on the books for sentencing of criminals convicted of crimes involving illegal use of firearms. (special enhancements etc.) I'm all for harsher punishments as long as they are actually enforced.

It is OK to have special qualifications (certification/training/licensing) for concealed/NFA weapons. Concealed carry should be an inalienable right, unless forfeited by criminal activity etc. Open carry...meh....I'm for it, but I'm against ignorant, foolish people being a public nuisance just to make a point about their Constitutional rights. It's my right to fart in crowded elevators and to wear offensive T-shirts to church, but really, is that something I really want to push?

Just my 3 cents.

There is a lot to be said about it, We all need the right to bear arms for freedom sake, however we have been infiltrated by every one of our enemies in our private sector as well as internal affairs, so our enemies could be our neighbors , employers, or subverted members of our families, communist have been a clever enemy and hit us in every direction, gun toting communist's doesn't make me feel very safe, its all a communist plot in my opinion, and the aristocrat allies dont make it any easier , so many people in our country seem to be supporters of aristocrat or monarch nations, we need a militia or army branch at county level to defend us at home in our own local residence, a branch anyone can volunteer to serve and defend our freedom, something legit not like the underground militia's they form to retaliate against gun control. Something to kick communists asses.