Gun Control/Gun Violence in the US

[Shaissa]

Dont tell me 'if you ban guns you need to ban hammers, hammers are weapons too.' - hammers are tools primarily and impromptu weapons. That sort of argument assumes we ban anything that can be used as a weapon is foolish. Bricks? Banned. Socks and soap? banned. Razor blades? Banned.

Im not even shocked at the news of a mass shooting in the US anymore. I think that alone proves what a sorry state of affairs it is over there regarding gun control.

Sadly I don't think just banning guns would stop someone from doing a killing spree believe it or not. People have found ways to kill people since before guns, yes there were fancy swords, but about a week ago, a kid walked into a school and stabbed over 20 people... didn't shoot anyone, he stabbed them.

Sadly I think that it just leads to more creative ways to kill people without guns.

Now I don't like guns, don't own one for personal reasons, but in the end I don't think "banning guns=less killings" in anywhere in the world... maybe less Mass murders in one spot, for a school or a mall for an example, and really the guns that are used are already banned, but as long as people are people, there will be murders.

 

[Dragon Mage]

iSmiff

I was just providing something to spark a conversation but I believe you missed the whole meaning of the quote.

"Gun laws only affect the law abiding, who are not inclined nor determined to commit a crime."

Meaning, those who do commit crimes have no qualms about breaking laws to acquire guns. The laws do not affect them, so therefore gun-control laws do not solve anything.

This means the real question is, for the purpose of reducing gun crime, how do we prevent illegal guns from being shipped into the country and sold on the street? Discuss this, since this is actual cause for concern, not the .38s being sold to 80-year-old widows.

 

[Harlequin]

Everyone is a "law abiding citizen" until they break the law. People aren't born criminals there is always a life before criminal disposition and often enough, a life after it too. Believing people without a criminal record aren't a possible threat to society is ridiculously naive. How many people don't have a record but go home drunk and beat their wives? A criminal record is the crimes you're charged with not the crimes you commit. Criminality is in the mind not in some police records.

 

[Harlequin]

It's also ridiculously insulting to assume everyone is a criminal-in-the-waiting. That's punishing people for crimes they haven't committed yet and it's wrong.


What's naive is thinking that people will be safer without a means to protect themselves in a world full of monsters.

I didn't say everyone was a criminal in the waiting I said anyone could become a criminal, including you and I because no one knows the future.

 

[iSmiff]

@iSmiff

I was just providing something to spark a conversation but I believe you missed the whole meaning of the quote.

"Gun laws only affect the law abiding, who are not inclined nor determined to commit a crime."

Meaning, those who do commit crimes have no qualms about breaking laws to acquire guns. The laws do not affect them, so therefore gun-control laws do not solve anything.

This means the real question is, for the purpose of reducing gun crime, how do we prevent illegal guns from being shipped into the country and sold on the street? Discuss this, since this is actual cause for concern, not the .38s being sold to 80-year-old widows.

@Harlequin has got it spot on.
Gun laws don't only affect the law abiding - you make a point to sound like it does but it doesnt. You will never eradicate guns around the world but that doesn't mean it's pointless to try. Stemming the flow makes it more difficult. Someone has to risk their life in terms of freedom to get a gun compared to walking to to a shop to buy one then maybe they wont do it? Gun laws therefore lower supply and make it more difficult to obtain. Less guns on the streets will mean less deaths per year from firearms. What's not to like?

If a criminal wants to obtain a gun that badly then they will probably be able to do that; but why not make it as difficult as possible? It's the same with anything. Drugs are illegal for a reason but you can still buy them illegally too? Are you saying all drugs should be legal so it stops the black market trade?

I'm not sure I could feel safe in a place where if you got in to a heated argument someone could pull out their pistol and end your life just like that. It's no coincidence that murder rater per capita are lower in countries with stricter gun control laws; how can you not get behind that?

Sadly I don't think just banning guns would stop someone from doing a killing spree believe it or not. People have found ways to kill people since before guns, yes there were fancy swords, but about a week ago, a kid walked into a school and stabbed over 20 people... didn't shoot anyone, he stabbed them.

Sadly I think that it just leads to more creative ways to kill people without guns.

Now I don't like guns, don't own one for personal reasons, but in the end I don't think "banning guns=less killings" in anywhere in the world... maybe less Mass murders in one spot, for a school or a mall for an example, and really the guns that are used are already banned, but as long as people are people, there will be murders.

Mhmm. And how rare are these as opposed to shooting sprees? It's much easier to take down 20 people with an assault rifle than it is with a knife. You can't argue that.

 

[Harlequin]

I agree with that. Anyone could become a criminal... the thing that matters though is IF they are already. So should we treat them as if they already committed a crime even though they haven't just because they 'could'? That's what I'm saying.

Because that's the same injustice that was bestowed upon the Japanese during WWII. They were put in concentration camps (that's what they were) simply because they were Japanese and could be working for Japan.

I know what you're saying Cali but I don't think it's quite as black and white as good guys and bad guys. Understanding criminality is crucial to this debate. Citizens are becoming criminals on a daily basis, shocking things are happening on a daily basis. More often it's the people who have made the mistakes and reformed who realise how easy it can be to cross the line into criminality.

Someone with no prior record but with a dangerous mentality can acquire a weapon. By dangerous I don't necessarily mean violent, but even emotionally unstable or just plain naive. A few years later their wife might leave them and take the kids with her and he might snap. The law abiding citizen snaps... does he go on to shoot his wife? He's finished now prison ain't for him, shoot the kids? Shoot the new boyfriend? Shoot John Doe across the street with his perfect family and his perfect life?

We're shocked on a daily basis by the crimes in this world and part of the shock is a consequence of our own naivety. The everyday citizen snaps and it's horrific what he or indeed she is capable of.

Congratulations on the new position by the way, you'll do a great job I'm sure!

 

[Harlequin]

I'm not sure I could feel safe in a place where if you got in to a heated argument someone could pull out their pistol and end your life just like that.

I completely agree. In a society where anyone without a record can obtain a gun you're still subject to a metaphorical Mexican standoff every time you have a heated argument with a stranger. Humans have impulses and in intense moments its hard not to express them with action.

 

[iSmiff]

Isn't that more reason to want citizens to be able to protect themselves? They might have a weapon and an urge to kill but at least if I had a gun I'd be able to protect myself.

And if there's no gun, he'll use poison, blunt force, or some other way to murder. Murderers always find ways to murder.

But you feel safe living in a place where criminals have weapons but you don't?

Im not sure a gun will help you by the time they've decided they're ending your life they've pulled theirs out and blown your head off your shoulders

that doesn't mean we should make it easy for them but making guns frey available

Safer. Because despite firearms being illegal/strictly regulated the black market activity isn't as you seemed to think it would be. Gun stories are extremely rare.

Apologies for for the poor quoting. Replying via phone.

 

[iSmiff]

You don't know that.

Not from what I've heard.

No I don't but if someone goes for you first odds are they are going to beat you to the punch.

and riiiiight. Care to elaborate on that?

 

[Harlequin]

Isn't that more reason to want citizens to be able to protect themselves? They might have a weapon and an urge to kill but at least if I had a gun I'd be able to protect myself.

That's why I agree we need better evaluations of people before they purchase weapons.

And if there's no gun, he'll use poison, blunt force, or some other way to murder. The problem isn't the weapon he's using, it's the person. He will snap and harm her no matter what. Murderers always find ways to murder. I mean look at ancient humans during the stone age, they wanted better meat, so they came up with tools like hammers and spears to kill prey, and they made those out of sticks and rocks. You can take away guns--but it won't mean they won't kill. It just means instead of using a gun, they'll use blunt force, poison, knives, arrows, and on and on and on.

Murderers will find a way to kill, now people just have to decide if they're going to be the cause of good people being unable to protect themselves.

The things I'm talking about couldn't be detected without ridiculously in depth psychological analysis which barely anyone would be willing to submit themselves to. People's mentalities change throughout life, we experience prosperity, adversity and trauma in our lives and our psyche responds to these experiences.

With regards to murderers using any means to kill I think that's blown out of proportion. The lethality of a firearm means someone could easily kill in a moment of madness, an outcome that may have been prevented had the firearm not been accessible. By way of your comparison, it's difficult to find a scenario in which poison isn't premeditated murder - a much more serious crime because of the mentality of the perpetrator.

I'd agree that those intent to kill could well attempt to with a variety of weapons, but it stands to reason that the more effective the weapon the more the would be killer is empowered and able to murder, both physically and also mentally. If a would be murderer isn't confident in the means they're using they're less likely to attempt the murder.

The risk to society is far greater than the protection guns provide, particularly because most people who aren't of a criminal disposition are less psychologically prepared to use lethal force.

 

[CassinoChips]

Sadly I don't think just banning guns would stop someone from doing a killing spree believe it or not. People have found ways to kill people since before guns, yes there were fancy swords, but about a week ago, a kid walked into a school and stabbed over 20 people... didn't shoot anyone, he stabbed them.

And none of them died. Because it's really fucking hard to kill 20 people at a time with a knife. Guns, on the other hand, make that a lot easier.

 

[iSmiff]

And none of them died. Because it's really fucking hard to kill 20 people at a time with a knife. Guns, on the other hand, make that a lot easier.

My. Point. Exactly.

 

[Dragon Mage]

Gun laws don't only affect the law abiding - you make a point to sound like it does but it doesnt. You will never eradicate guns around the world but that doesn't mean it's pointless to try. Stemming the flow makes it more difficult. Someone has to risk their life in terms of freedom to get a gun compared to walking to to a shop to buy one then maybe they wont do it? Gun laws therefore lower supply and make it more difficult to obtain. Less guns on the streets will mean less deaths per year from firearms. What's not to like?

If a criminal wants to obtain a gun that badly then they will probably be able to do that; but why not make it as difficult as possible? It's the same with anything. Drugs are illegal for a reason but you can still buy them illegally too? Are you saying all drugs should be legal so it stops the black market trade?

In order,

1. It is false to think that preventing anyone from having guns will automatically equal less gun crime. It merely ensures that the strong become stronger and the weak stay meek. Also, it isn't a life-risking operation to get illegal guns into the US at all. Recently, a California Senator or mayor (I forget which) was busted by the FBI for helping criminals smuggle in guns in exchange for kickbacks. THIS is the issue we need to address. THOSE are the guns causing harm, not the hunting shotguns or the under-the-pillow .38's. Those only get the dust blown off them for either hunting or for self defense. Gun-running is a very lucrative and illegal business in the US, and it causes the most harm. Remember that failed operation a few years back, 'Fast and Furious' or some such thing? That was about guns being smuggled into the US from Mexico.

America is HUGE. We cannot keep immigrants out that own nothing but the clothes on their back -- they literally just walk over the border. So no, there is VERY little risk for gun-runners and illegal gun dealers, or for the criminals that buy from them. If it were at all dangerous, our police wouldn't be seizing tons of illegal weapons off the street every year.

2. Also, there are extensive background checks and mental stability checks required before purchasing a firearm. One cannot simply 'walk into a shop and buy one'. There are very thorough and excellent screenings in place to prevent what you are describing from happening. We already know, in fact, that this system works. The Columbine shootings -- those guns were acquired by breaking several gun laws. Adam Lanza tried to buy guns before his rampage and was denied because his background check didn't clear and he had a well documented history of mental illness. The Batman movie shooter also tried to buy guns and was denied. All of these cases acquired their guns illegally so we must turn our attention to THAT in order to find any solution.

3. Less guns on the street does not mean there will be less crime, not the way you are defining it. If you mean illegal weapons acquired illegally, then yes, there would be less crime. But if you mean your average, law-abiding, responsible citizen with a concealed carry permit, then no, that logic is flawed. You are, if I may point out, making a very hasty assumption and not giving the matter any due thought whatsoever. I know you are a very bright person, Smiff, so I ask you to please consider what I'm saying to be true. It is very easy for a person to make a generalized assumption, but how many generalizations are ever true?

If it were as simple as getting rid of all guns to reduce crime, then why hasn't crime in Britain gone down? Yes, there is still gun crime there. Why hasn't Australia or Germany or Austria or France seen any reduced gun crime? See, the answer isn't that simple, it's a matter that is much more complex than most people want to admit. They see crime being committed with guns and automatically assume that the gun is the cause of the crime. It doesn't take a genius to point out that this kind of thinking belongs in the same bag as such comments like, "I have skin. Potatoes have skin. Therefore, I am a potato."

Getting illegal guns off the street is what will see a reduction in crime. Not banning all guns entirely. Criminals will still be able to acquire their guns without impediment, while the enormous majority of people will be disarmed and thus utterly helpless to this savage minority that will take what they want with confidence in their victim's helplessness. Not all guns are bad -- there's 300 million guns out there in the US but only a handful of actual gun crimes. And of those crimes? Nearly ALL of them made with illegal weapons. The legal guns are under a very watchful eye and strict control, we don't have to worry about those.

We do have to worry about the illegal ones, for those are the killers.

I'm not sure I could feel safe in a place where if you got in to a heated argument someone could pull out their pistol and end your life just like that. It's no coincidence that murder rater per capita are lower in countries with stricter gun control laws; how can you not get behind that?

XD

Pardon me, but I must laugh at this.

As a gun owner and carrier I must tell you that you are operating from an outsider's point of view. And I understand why you would think this, who wouldn't be concerned, but let me tell you right now that such fears are entirely without merit. I can see your concerns and no doubt there are certainly people with anger issues that may do just as you describe. Know what happens to those people when they try to get a gun?

They are denied. Hard. Any kind of anger issue is on your record and the background checks are nothing if not very, very thorough.

Trust me, you would feel perfectly safe in such a scenario. I have been in such a situation as you describe (not a debate or anything, more like a person wanting to make a fight) and I did get angry -- and then I got very, very calm. I knew I could, if needed, take the situation much further than this drunk was willing to go. I told her, calmly and quietly, to leave me alone and that I didn't want to be bothered. After a little more shouting, she stumbled off. And that was the conclusion of the incident.

Also consider that a gun is a very powerful tool of intimidation. I believe the statistic is something like 43% of gun owners never had to fire a shot in a situation where they were endangered. Merely seeing a gun can make any assailant decided to find less well-defended prey. My situation as I've described would likely have been such a kind. For a moment there, I really did think she was going to jump me. My adrenaline was up, my heartrate breaking new records and the only thing I felt was fear. The only thing I could think was, "Don't do it, bitch. Don't do it. Do not make me draw." When she left, that was the most profound sense of relief I have ever known. Had I actually drawn, she probably would've just run away. Luckily, knowing I controlled the situation entirely, I was able to wait out her tirade until she finally got bored and left.

ANY legally gun-carrying citizen will be able to relate similar stories to you. Having a gun has been proven to actually make people less likely to make a fight or cause and incident. Why? Because they know they have all the power in the situation. Shooting someone or even killing them is NOT taken lightly AT ALL. Simply knowing that you can go the extra mile has given people enormous calm and patience in situations they would otherwise get even more furious in. Go look it up if you don't believe me. Join a pro-gun forum and ask them if what I say is true. I gauarantee you that they will repeat what I have said.

Also, your statement here is illogical and not researched, I'm afraid to say. Again, you are making an assumption. There have never been, to my knowledge, any incidents of some Joes at a bar getting pissed over football game and 'whipping out a gun and just shoot someone'. XD Actually, that's just so silly I must laugh. No, that just doesn't happen -- and if it does, they are such rare and isolated cases that I've never heard of them, or even about them. Needless to say, such theoretical 'killings' do not contribute to any murder rate -- because they don't happen.

What does contribute to the murder rate is killings performed by gangs and criminals with illegally obtained weapons. Trust me, you don't have to worry about the college student or the blue-collar worker carrying a gun. They will not draw unless they absolutely MUST. Those people don't want to kill anyone. In short, they are not a threat. They carry guns for the same reason people carry condoms -- better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it. God knows, I don't get up in the morning hoping to shoot somebody. I mean, Lord have mercy! I carry because I realize that while I myself have no hostile intentions to anyone, there are plenty of people that do. And if I must defend myself from such a person, then I have the power to do so. But I certainly pray that I will never ever have to.

Now that we've established that law-abiding citizens and legally obtained guns are not to blame for the entirety of gun crime, can you please posit a solution to preventing the smuggling and sale of illegal weapons?

Smiff, I ask that you truly give this due thought. Right now, it sounds like you're reading off a list of propaganda. You don't have to agree with my views, but all I ask is that you give my words the benefit of the doubt. Right now you have it hammered in your mind that guns = bad. This isn't true. Nothing is inherently bad (well, a virus maybe...) You know the world is never that black and white. The real issue at hand is illegal guns -- they are the ones out on the street unaccounted for. Please work with me here. I genuinely want to know what you think could be done to reduce illegal guns. So please Smiff, I ask that you give this issue genuine consideration.
LadyPOTUS I agree with everything you've said 100% Keep it up!

 

[iSmiff]

IThe Columbine shootings -- those guns were acquired by breaking several gun laws. Adam Lanza tried to buy guns before his rampage and was denied because his background check didn't clear and he had a well documented history of mental illness. The Batman movie shooter also tried to buy guns and was denied. All of these cases acquired their guns illegally so we must turn our attention to THAT in order to find any solution.

3. Less guns on the street does not mean there will be less crime, not the way you are defining it. If you mean illegal weapons acquired illegally, then yes, there would be less crime. But if you mean your average, law-abiding, responsible citizen with a concealed carry permit, then no, that logic is flawed. You are, if I may point out, making a very hasty assumption and not giving the matter any due thought whatsoever. I know you are a very bright person, Smiff, so I ask you to please consider what I'm saying to be true. It is very easy for a person to make a generalized assumption, but how many generalizations are ever true?

If it were as simple as getting rid of all guns to reduce crime, then why hasn't crime in Britain gone down? Yes, there is still gun crime there. Why hasn't Australia or Germany or Austria or France seen any reduced gun crime? See, the answer isn't that simple, it's a matter that is much more complex than most people want to admit. They see crime being committed with guns and automatically assume that the gun is the cause of the crime. It doesn't take a genius to point out that this kind of thinking belongs in the same bag as such comments like, "I have skin. Potatoes have skin. Therefore, I am a potato."

Sorry for the short reply: I'm at work and will reply in greater detail when at home. The first thought that springs to my mind is that these gunmen were all denied guns apparently, yet still managed to get their hands on bags of high calibre rifles and ammunition. Is that not a concern? I don't think it's a coincidence it's happening over and over again. You can't deny that were the gun laws like those in Europe then they would not have been able to get their hands on any because there wouldn't be as many in supply. I'm correct in thinking that Lanza am chap and the columbine shootings both used some of their parents firearms in the massacres am I right? Also, a gun that is legally bought but is then stolen must count towards your quota of illegal firearms: but if these were not sold in the first place then they wouldn't have been stolen would they?

The reason EU countries haven't seen declines in gun crime is because it's significantly harder to tackle low gun crime than it is high gun crime. Crime in Britain has gone down actually in the past 10 or so years too.

i just don't understand the argument that the only way to combat gun crime is with more guns. I'm not going to exaggerate an example but it just seems silly. At no point in my life have I ever thought ' I wish I had a gun to feel safe'z but then again maybe our cultures are just that different but I try not to think like that.

That potato argument is ridiculous too. Guns are useful tools in crime because of the intimidation factor that you so mentioned which is apparently so helpful in self defence. And as far as laughing at my concern of being shot after an argument it definitely happens. If it was your father would you still be lobbying for more guns? I really just can't understand why you feel tools of death are necessary at all, let alone freely purchasable.

Your argument tries to make it sound that only illegal guns are used in Crime which I find hard to believe. I feel that you rely on guns because humans are creatures of habit. If you were born without guns as part of your lifestyle I'm not sure you'd have the same opinion as you do now. All a gun is is an opportunity to end a life; why do you want that around you in close proximity? There are far too many irresponsible people out there to warrant such lax and irresponsible attitudes to dangerous weaponry. I'm not saying illegal guns aren't an issue; I'm just saying that if there were strict gun laws to begin with there wouldn't be as big an issue as were facing now.

as far as propaganda goes I have no idea what you mean. Not everything is a conspiracy. I based these on my opinions and my opinion is ultimately that a gun is a weapon with 1 use; to kill. That's what it was invented for. To take life. Why do you want subject like that matter around you, let alone in the hands of a populous where so many people are clearly not mentally in the right mind to handle them. That's not a dig at the US either: I wouldn't say any country is. I'm just worry that your thoughts are more blind patriotism and habit than actual logic. However you try and justify it it still won't make sense ; why you want a weapon around ; the end result is only going to be a negative one. You want guns to protect yourself (from guns) - I get that. But if there were no guns to protect yourself from then you wouldn't need them in the first place. Sadly I think the US is too far gone in that respect. Could you imagine civil unrest in the US? It would be carnage! What would the French do? Throw garlic at eachother. Those manipulates statistics from pro/anti gun lobbyists I tend not to take much notice of. They are manipulated by both sides.

apologies for any errors. I'm not a great typer on the phone.

 

[Shaissa]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/1...ese-school-wounds-22-children/?iref=allsearch

These are great examples... China has gun laws and yet they still get these killing sprees with other weapons.

Like I said before, I don't like guns or have one myself, but at the same time, I know if people want to kill...they will find a way... knives... bricks...anything they can get their hands on. Now I am not saying to ban all weapons or things that can possible be used as weapons. I am also not saying that there should be no regulations on guns. What I am saying People have been killing people since the beginning of time, and sadly I don't see this ever changing and I don't think some gun laws or even if you take away guns from every person in the world including the military will ever change this, so yes go ahead and put up huge restrictions on guns... these usually aren't the ones that are killing people..

I have to find the study but I think they say only 10%-12% of gun crimes in America were used by registered guns. The rest were unregistered and therefor illegal guns.

 

[Linnaete]

Oh gee, I wonder how many more would have been killed or maimed in those two Chinese case examples if the perpetrators had guns instead of knives.

I'd rather run from a knife than a gun. Because a knife still doesn't kill or maim with the same efficiency and deadliness as a firearm.

 

[CassinoChips]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/

It took 10 people to kill 29 in a crowded station. And 100+ escaped with just injuries.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/1...ese-school-wounds-22-children/?iref=allsearch

NONE OF THEM DIED.

Thank you for adding to my point that it's really fucking hard to kill people quickly with knives.

These are great examples... China has gun laws and yet they still get these killing sprees with other weapons.

Like I said before, I don't like guns or have one myself, but at the same time, I know if people want to kill...they will find a way... knives... bricks...anything they can get their hands on. Now I am not saying to ban all weapons or things that can possible be used as weapons. I am also not saying that there should be no regulations on guns. What I am saying People have been killing people since the beginning of time, and sadly I don't see this ever changing and I don't think some gun laws or even if you take away guns from every person in the world including the military will ever change this, so yes go ahead and put up huge restrictions on guns... these usually aren't the ones that are killing people..

I have to find the study but I think they say only 10%-12% of gun crimes in America were used by registered guns. The rest were unregistered and therefor illegal guns.

In other words, it's too hard so we should give up. Forcing lax states to actually implement gun laws and enforcing them at the federal level would be a good start to eliminating the flood of illegal guns.

 

[Shaissa]

In other words, it's too hard so we should give up. Forcing lax states to actually implement gun laws and enforcing them at the federal level would be a good start to eliminating the flood of illegal guns.

Not what I said at all, you just make it sound like that if we get rid of all guns here in America...or the world for that matter no more deaths from weapons...or even guns would happen...

Like I said I don't like or want a gun... but at the same time I am not going stop someone who wants to go hunting for deer to use it.

Also this brings up a question of how many rights will you give up to feel safe for a short bit of time? Cause it was I believe Benjamin Franklin that said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[CassinoChips]

Not what I said at all, you just make it sound like that if we get rid of all guns here in America...or the world for that matter no more deaths from weapons...or even guns would happen...

Like I said I don't like or want a gun... but at the same time I am not going stop someone who wants to go hunting for deer to use it.

Neither am I. But of course, hunting rifles aren't primarily used for shooting people. It's the handguns and assault weapons that are the problem.

Also this brings up a question of how many rights will you give up to feel safe for a short bit of time? Cause it was I believe Benjamin Franklin that said "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Let's not play the quote game. As with most quotes, that one is taken out of context and doesn't mean what most take it to mean.

Furthermore, I'd give up my 2nd Amendment rights to save 10000 lives per year. But that's just me being a crazy gun control nut.

 

[Shaissa]

Neither am I. But of course, hunting rifles aren't primarily used for shooting people. It's the handguns and assault weapons that are the problem.

This I do 100% agree with, I don't see the need for assault or handguns (except for law enforcement) I mean why would anyone need a gun that can shoot so many bullets in a second for "protection" is one thing I never understood.

These types of guns should be illegal at the very least I do agree with.