Guns Control.... yah or nay

Defending yourself against crazy people who need a gun to defend themselves against other crazy people.

Does an ordinary citizen like you need a sports car? Why are you allowed to buy something objectively more dangerous and less useful than a prius?

Poll should not allow multiple selections for yes/no.

At the moment, federal law explicitly bans the sale of guns to those who have been convicted of 1.) domestic abuse or 2.) have had a restraining order against them, from owning or purchasing a weapon. It is a felony to sell to them, as was the recent case where an ex airforce soldier, returned home, had domesticly assaulted his own family, and yet was still granted guns since he was an ex service member. Who else should not have guns out of domestic abuse/restraining order criminals?

If there are lesser guns in the market it will be hard for them to get some. People responsible for mass shootings are not always criminals but may be they are in depression now or other state of mind which led them to do shootings. You can’t protect yourself all the time even if you own the gun as you don’t carry them everywhere. So point of keeping guns for your safety doesn’t make sense. On the other hand if there are very less or no guns allowed everyone will feel much safer.

I will concede, your idea may have reduced gun-involved crimes if it were enacted from day 1. But since there are so many unregistered and outright illegal weapons in circulation already, restricting access now would not have any effect on crimes fed by the gray market (criminal supply) for possibly a decade or more. I feel that it may even create advantageous odds for the offenders in the short term. My outlook is “we’re so fucked, we have to allow Joe the Plumber to carry, in case even the police’s immediate response won’t be fast enough to stop an immediate threat.” Such as in the case of a break-in. Most of us will never experience one. Most of us will never have to use deadly force against another human being. Much like the scarcity of having to use flood insurance when you live on a hill. I have unpopular beliefs. Especially for being from a red state. I believe that breaking and entering automatically clears a homeowner to use lethal means to handle the situation. I believe that if someone fights you for your wallet or purse, you should be able to stop them, with lethal force, if they try to get away. We should never have to choose between losing what we’ve worked hard for and losing our life. We have the right to both.

So says the rich person who does not wish to invest in their own security.

Apparently not rich, I make less than new grads in here. You have a better chance of shooting yourself than defending yourself if you don't go through proper and routine training to handle those situations. Also, if nobody has guns what do you need protection from, and why are you so concerned with someone assaulting you? Are you trapping?

The auto industry is not constitutionally protected. Big difference.

Naw. I don’t own a gun. But I love guns. I go skeet shooting from time to time, and love it. And I’ll probably own one if the future. But I firmly believe we need gun reform among other things to improve public safety.

You love doesn’t mean it’s basic freedom. Consequences of gun have been bad. So why not ban it. You can have a toy gun to keep with you as you won’t use your gun anyways.

Consequences of alcohol are pretty bad too, we tried banning that and the economy dipped before we legalized that again...