Gun Control Anyone?

What part of "shall not be infringed" do people do not understand?

The people are allowed to keep and bear arms, currently.

Chance, the problem comes from the law's duty to protect the people. Yes, people are granted the right to bear arms in the constitution, yet if they use those guns to kill, threaten or hurt others, thus becoming criminals, shouldn't the law be able to prevent said tragedies from happening? That's the nature of the argument with gun control- or at least the reasons that I see for it. Personally, I think it's a necessary evil that's needed to hopefully reduce the violence quotas. Well, just look at Canada for example- their gun laws are very strict and they seem to have a much smaller crime rate than we do.

I agree with xena....i mean the guns aren't evil for they are not alive and controlling themselves...thus, it is the sense that people use the guns for the wrong purposes that the law should forbade.

accordingly, all the gang issues portrays that people should have to be controlled in some way; yet, the bullets are practically being used up for this pathetically endless war...perhaps the gun issue won't have to be hassled over as much.

additionally, i think that the freedom and right to bear arms should still be allowed for it is a citizen's form of self defense in most cases and should therefore be protected.

Personally I am in favor of having a stricter control of guns...but I'm also not sure of how it should be done. So I really can't defend my views a ton here because I haven't done my research yet. Sorry!

Pro Gun control:

1. The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago, when every gun was a single shot weapon that took time to reload. A gun WAS needed to hunt for food, and protect your land. Today... they are not needed and have become increasingly dangerous.

2. In countries like the UK, stricter gun control laws (Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006) have resulted in a decrease in gun crime. It is harder to obtain firearms, so something obviously must be working. Look at this: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

3. No weapon above a handgun is needed, no shotguns, no rifles, nothing. Most people who break and enter are not armed, so there is barely a need for guns.

Because there is a much higher sentence for armed robber than just breaking and entering.

4. Allow police to have automatic weapons and not citizens, unless there is a strict certification process.

ok...gun control.....no. listen people. its the same on this as almost every other controversial event or law. the media will tell you about the 1 person that has a gun and uses it for bad stuff. what they dont tell you is about the other million people w/ gun permits, that obeys the laws and that having a gun allowed them to protect themselves in bad situations. the whole point of getting concealed weapons permits. and i think that we should NOT allow the police have automatic weapons. just saying, the police get new weapons, criminals are going to get more bullet proof vests, we buy new bullets that pierce body armor, criminals will find and use them too. they will also learn to reinforce themselves. trust me. the more the police upgrade, the more the criminals will. soon we will be in the middle of a war zone as soon as we step off our front porch.

Thats pretty illogical considering the police are entrusted to protect, its their job. Besides, do you think that if police have better technology that it will actually lead to an increase in crime? No, it will deter crime considering the role of the police is to ensure security. Since it will be harder to attain guns, there will be less gun violence. (the chart I provided shows that). Honestly I can "trust" you on this because I can't see any logic in your point of view.

Now about the criminals that will increase their arms to match the police:

They would do that anyway. Does it seem logical that a bank robber would only go in with a pistol because the police only have pistols? No, the robber would have high tech guns anyway. By enforcing gun laws, the likeliness of an event such as that that can decrease, and police can respond to the threat better.

For example when the police didn't have automatic weapons two robbers did increase their technology, and the violence was greater than it should have been. (This is the case of Emil Matasareanu, look it up).

well say the same bank robbers decide to go to, oh i dont know, into the military at some point. (before they do said act) and bring home an m-16 or somethin. come to think of it, the county commisioner of my county which i am long time friends w/ his family, has 2 light rocket launchers in his garage. being in the military gives these guys HUGE advantages on police weaponry and statistics show that many veterans of any war are least likely to bounce into society and live a normal life. by allowing a police officer have an automatic weapon, it opens up an opportunity for them. robber has nice gun, accurate, little ammo though. runs out after killing 3 cops, its a free for all w/ an ex marine and an automatic assault rifle. its illogical.

The bank robber wouldn't be able to go into the military because he would be caught. (This must be assumed because this is the job of the police). Now about some one bringing home an m16 or something. A normal citizen would NOT be allowed to own this item, and unless the military or police officer passed a STRICT procedure in order to own the firearm, no one would be able to own automatic weapons. Just as an aside, your county commissioner should not be allowed to have the rocket launchers, there is no need for them.

Well, you argument seems to have changed, but I believe that your argument is that if police are armed with better firearms, crime will increase or at least gun violence. No. Think about it like this:
If ex military personnel have, for some reason, automatic weapons with them and are deciding to rob a bank, and they all somehow passed the requirements to own such a weapon even in the desperate state that they are in, and they knew that the police had weapons as advanced as they do there would almost assuredly be more who do not rob a bank or commit gun violence than if the police had equal attack power. honestly though, ex-military personnel should not be allowed to own automatic firearms due to the fact that there is no reason for them to.