Maybe they could take away semi-automatic weapons. That would be a good start.

The problem with gun control is, most of the laws people want are already in place, or have been tried before and been unsuccessful. An assault weapons ban doesn't work, for one because the difference between an assault weapon and any other rifle is looks, and two because most bad guys use pistols. You could ban semiautomatics, but that bans probably 60-80% of all guns made in the last 100 years. No gun rights supporter would be okay with that, and in the US, that's more than half the people here. That doesn't work.

You can ban handguns, but that bans about 50-60% of guns here, and again, gun rights supporters won't go for that.

Simply put, the reason gun rights supporters make a big deal about banning all guns is because that's the only legislative action that will actually have any effect. The problem is, that won't have a good one. All those, "You can take my gun from my cold, dead hands types," they're pretty serious. They won't just hand them over. So any ban is going to be met largely with resistance, and there will be basically no one giving up their guns.

The only way to get rid of guns in the US is to have police go door to door, searching every house. Not only is that incredibly illegal, but the big effect is going to be a lot of dead cops when gun nuts shoot them.

TL;DR Support gun rights or not, your hands are pretty tied here.

Well, I've always wanted to own an AA-12 fully automatic shotgun equipped with a large drum magazine, so I guess I would say take away all guns but that

have guns still be legal, but have you take lotsa test to get one

BOOM you satisfy both political parties

Well. We should see peoples criminal records. See if they can get a gun or not. Plus we should add more police in areas. So other people won't live like a Sandy Hook moment. Plus, we should give the powerful guns to the army. They need the guns more than we do.

To put it plainly I don't think guns should be legal. The reason behind my view is because I live in Australia and here we have a low gun murder rate - simply because it is extremely, extremely difficult to acquire a gun. I know that it's not the gun that's evil, it's the person abusing it, but that's exactly the point. There will always be evil people. There will always be someone, for whatever reason, wanting to obtain a gun to murder other people. The fact that a mere gun isn't evil is an invalid argument in itself. Who cares? Neither's a bomb unless someone sets it off.

The challenge for America however, is if guns are stripped from citizens, it's going to be much harder to ensure EVERY gun has been stripped from EVERY citizen due to the fact that these laws weren't pursued years ago. Criminal masterminds would probably find a way to obtain them, but what about those seemingly 'normal' people with the potential to commit murder too? That's all of us, we are all at risk of falling to murder. We sometimes do unpredictable things. That's why banning guns especially and most importantly from being sold in your typical gun store is so damn important - so those who aren't particularly as capable as masterminds of obtaining guns won't have it easy to do so.

Lastly, countries with gun control laws have a much less significant amount of gun-related murders. Simple.
It just works.

illuminati

Gun laws should be completely federal, and make background checks mandatory. They should also remove carry laws and make stricter transport laws, preventing or making it harder for criminals to transport firearms. The main problem is that with 270 million handguns in the states, it is extremely hard to prevent criminals from getting one.

Ban all guns and place a $500,000 fine on anyone caught with one. Then build a power plant that runs on butthurt. Massive profit.

rmg126 wrote:

Ban all guns and place a $500,000 fine on anyone caught with one. Then build a power plant that runs on butthurt. Massive profit.

Hilarious lol, anyways I see no point in banning guns it's not going to solve anything. In my opinion improving education is a more important goal. For example, there are statistics linking drop-outs to crime rates. Or the fact that 'Merica has in my opinion the worst education statistics out there? Come on seriously? We're supposed to be a global power not global dunce. Anyways gun control would only control the guns in the legal owners hands not the criminals, just like the war on drugs. Wha wha whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.:shifty:

Taking guns only works on people who follow the law anyway.

Guns shouldn't be legal but they definitly aren't just gonna get rid of them.
what i think the first step should be is to make it more difficult to aquire a gun. people just buy guns in some shop just like that. I think that people have to be aquired to show their passports or any other form of identification before buying one also i think that only handguns should be sold if any guns are being sold!

As guns become more and more regulated you will find that less law abiding citizens and more criminals will be carrying guns. Criminals don't follow laws, why do you think they will follow gun laws?

Throughout history, government takeovers have been aided by gun control and a lack of gun control has kept citizens safe. In Switzerland, where guns are completely legal and almost completely unregulated, you can see that the country has successfully remained neutral in every war in the last five hundred years. During World War Two, one of the biggest reasons the Nazis did not attack Switzerland was because over 50% of the population had guns and there was no list of who had guns and who didn't. On the other hand, in France and Poland, one of the first things the Nazis did was confiscate the lists of registered gun owners and either find and confiscate the guns or arrest and even kill the gun owners. In Switzerland, they would not have been able to do this because there was no gun registration. The Nazis realized that it would be too costly to capture and hold Switzerland.

Think about it. If half of the people in a region have guns, that's half the population defending the country from invasion. Those who survived the initial invasion would then retreat into the woods and cause havoc. The Nazis had enough trouble from the French resistance. They knew that if they had the Swiss resistance, they would have to put a lot of military strength into Switzerland.

A little known fact: During World War Two, Japan considered invading the mainland United States, but decided not to because of the large amount of gun owners in America.

In conclusion: No, gun control is bad and very much against the second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.

Edit: I know it is a long post, hence I have highlighted the main parts. They should be quite understandable without reading through everything else.

This issue seems similar to the Italian problem of tax evasion, which from the last statistics I've read (published during the Summer of 2012) had it at the 18% of the GDP (the GDP being 2,19 trillions of dollars, which puts the evasion at a bit less than 400 billions).
Supposing guns, just like taxes, to be non-removable completely (because of the Second Amendment, because of cultural and historical influence, because it's materially impossible or because it's economically inconvenient, you decide), here are some thoughts of mine.

With taxes, you can't simply pretend to raise them thinking everything will be all right, you can't keep having people that evade them, expect the whole population to be happy and enter an economic golden age.
You can't provide a gun to everyone of your citizens and demand everyone to comply and defend themselves or to count on them to be able to do so (exempli gratia, what about that old man - perhaps rich, perhaps who lives alone; (even if these aren't decisive factors) - that can barely see or is too weak to carry a gun? He would end up surrounded by good and evil people, all of which bearing a weapon. Even a good person, if in economic problems or w/e, could give in to his instincts and take advantage of the "self-protection" weapon issued by the government.).
This solution discriminates those who are not willing or able to use weapons.

Back to the taxes, you can try lowering their amount, hoping for people that evade to start paying them, but without having certainty of this fact.
Gun control could be applied, but then what happens? There could be legal pistols (for example), which are able to kill, and there could be illegal shotguns (for example), which of course criminals could/would keep using illegally.
This solution, while annoying to the criminals with the possibility to hide illegal guns, would end up favoring them, since they would encounter less "strong resistance" from private citizens; it would also be not well-viewed for those that think of this detrimental to the American culture (which is to say "for the same reasons guns aren't completely removable").

Another solution, tax wise, would be focusing on finding those that evade them and oblige them to comply (something that here in Italy is being done each year better, it seems. But don't quote me on that, it's just my impression, grown through several news of different kinds).
Back to the American problem, this would not only mean finding the criminals that actively exploit guns, but also improve the overall education, happiness and economical situation to avoid people being robbed by the aforementioned guy in a bad financial situation or being killed by mad/sad persons. (mad and sad are words that live in a very close relationship, in my opinion).
This solution is obviously the one done most passively (just like here in Italy something to counter tax evaders has always been going on, the USA have always been concerned about arresting criminals and making people's lives livable, but these things haven't always been the focus) but also the most complicated and time-expensive to achieve for obvious reasons.

What should be done (it has probably already been done) is to analyze each category of shooting/murder to decide which course of action follow and to understand how much the famous massacres are important: roughly a total of 300.000 people died in Hiroshima and in Nagasaki, killed by two nuclear bombs; roughly a total of 350.000 civilians died in Stalingrad, killed by several German bombings. With this I mean: don't become biased because of the media. I don't know the precise data, but supposing that four reported, big, shootings with around one hundred victims have risen this whole topic, do you think that double that amount of murders, less discussed by the media, would have had the same effect?
Of course, if the people killed by high caliber weapons outnumbers those killed by handguns perhaps it's better to start controlling those high caliber weapons, also seeking out those being held illegally; otherwise, it could be detrimental focusing on a minority and the State should think mostly of how to reduce the likelyhood of murders, or whatever involves weapons, increasing the already mentioned education, happiness and economical situation.

So far, I have tried to keep this post as devoid of moral opinions as possible (and as polished and comprehensible as possible, trust me :D). I personally believe that each life is equally priceless and each death equally painful; everything within our power that aligns with our own road to bliss should be done to prevent such happenings and, in general, to do good. The hard part is to understand what is it that can be done.

Lastly, with this kind of poetic "everything within our power that aligns with our own road to bliss" I simply mean that, in theory, we could all become doctors and save lives, or policemen and catch numerous criminals, apparently among the best ways to do good, but what if one of us would have become a writer, instead, and would have inspired, made happy thousands with his words? Or what if someone would have become a scientist and invented something good for humanity (not necessarily health related; I believe the Internet to have been good for the happiness of countless people, for example)? What if someone would have become an entrepreneur and provided jobs for other people? What if someone would have become what he would become, no one special, but made a person happy, even once?

Ari Gold wrote:

For or against. If for, what should be regulated and what should be left alone?

Discuss.

Assault weapons (all of them) should be made illegal, high capacity and extended clips should be illegal, and no automatic or semi-automatic weapons, period.

Anything else should require exhaustive background checks, training, and an annual registry.

Ghukek wrote:

As guns become more and more regulated you will find that less law abiding citizens and more criminals will be carrying guns. Criminals don't follow laws, why do you think they will follow gun laws?

Murderers and rapists don't follow the law either, but we still find ourselves in a country where it's illegal to commit murder and rape. I guess we should legalize murder, since people do it anyways?

We don't create laws with the intention of completely ridding whatever it is we're trying to regulate; we create laws with the intention of rectifying an issue to the best of our ability. Nobody is suggesting that gun control will instantaneously stop criminals from obtaining weapons. The point is that it makes it more difficult for them to do so.

Ghukek wrote:

In Switzerland, where guns are completely legal and almost completely unregulated, you can see that the country has successfully remained neutral in every war in the last five hundred years.

Switzerland has an entirely different gun culture and ideology than the United States. You're comparing apples to oranges.

Its citizens are military trained, have military issued guns, and are expected to enter military service.

They also have a population about the size of a U.S. city, and the poverty rate within the country is extremely low, a large contributing factor to the low crime rate.

Ghukek wrote:

During World War Two, one of the biggest reasons the Nazis did not attack Switzerland was because over 50% of the population had guns and there was no list of who had guns and who didn't.

No, it was because the majority of their citizens were military trained and well-armed, owing to the fact that they were the actual army. This, in addition to the extremely hostile terrain, is why Hitler did no invade; he had no logical reason to invade Switzerland.

I don't recommend putting that response on a history exam.

Ghukek wrote:

On the other hand, in France and Poland, one of the first things the Nazis did was confiscate the lists of registered gun owners and either find and confiscate the guns or arrest and even kill the gun owners.

Source?

Ghukek wrote:

Think about it. If half of the people in a region have guns, that's half the population defending the country from invasion. Those who survived the initial invasion would then retreat into the woods and cause havoc. The Nazis had enough trouble from the French resistance. They knew that if they had the Swiss resistance, they would have to put a lot of military strength into Switzerland.

We don't need half the country armed to deter an invasion. That's what the army, navy and air force are for.

Ghukek wrote:

A little known fact: During World War Two, Japan considered invading the mainland United States, but decided not to because of the large amount of gun owners in America.

You realize this statement, which has been circulating the internet for years, has already been proven false and is nothing more than a pro-gun advocate talking point?

Japan had no intention of invading the U.S. mainland, and "the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd." FactCheck.org : Gun Control in Australia

Ghukek wrote:

In conclusion: No, gun control is bad and very much against the second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America.

The second amendment, for numerous decades, was interpreted by SCOTUS to refer to state militias only, meaning individual citizens had no right to bear arms. It wasn't until judicial activist judges like Scalia and Alito were selected that the meaning changed to include an "individual right."

So no, gun control doesn't hinder the second amendment at all.

Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control? | Mother Jones

Are you fucking retarded
America has the highest crime rate whcih seems obivous!
it's not a safe place, at any moment you could get shot on the streets.
Besides, there is no war, if they are in war they can just revert the gun law allowing everyone to buy guns.
Especially after that school shooting, I realized that I NEVER wanna go to America.

Criminals don't follow gun laws???
What makes you think that criminals would defend a counrtry from invasion???
your logic is flawed!