Stricter gun laws needed in the US? Thoughts on why or why not and whether it would impact our country positively or negatively? Doing a paper on this so just getting input.

Well one thing I find interesting with the laws on gun control is that you can own a rifle/shotgun when your 18, but can’t own a hand gun til 21. Apparently it’s easier to conceal the pistol and hide it. Even though the kid, who did the mass shooting, had the rifle hidden in a back pack. I’m not against gun control but if your gonna make certain laws like these then what’s the point. A nut job can own a fully automatic gun at 18(which is pretty young and some people can’t handle the privilege). I’m a person who just got approved for my foid card a little bit ago. I’ve been raised shooting off rifles, shotguns, and micelanious types of pistols since I was 10. I’ve been raised and shown how to handle a gun and use it for the right reasons. If anything there probably should be a class with instructors required just to receive a foid card at this point. A lot of people who never touched a gun in their lives can just apply and get the card still.

i think u already have so many guns in usa and have such a culture around them that i dont think gun laws wont make a difference

As someone who shoots for their occupation often, owns many firearms, and is frustrated by the ignorance among gun-grabbers I'm just going to lay out some facts.

We (civilians) have had semi-automatic firearms in the US for over 100 years. Gun ownership per-capita is higher the further back in time you go, yet school shootings have increased. School shootings account for a tiny tiny fraction of deaths by firearm every year, the vast majority being suicides first, then by gang-related crime in strict gun control areas. School shootings, AND mass shootings in general, are the smallest statistic from all gun related violence.

The strictest regulations restrict the carrying of a handgun, which is really only practical to defend one's self from a single, close encounter. Yet, people are determined to restrict sem-automatic rifles, which are the least used weapon in crime. In Los-Angeles, one of the strictest gun areas in the nation, I cannot carry a handgun on my person. However, I can have a long gun (AR-15, shotgun, bolt-action etc) in my Jeep at all times. That is because long guns are rarely to almost never used in crimes.

Civilians can not own (easily) "assault" style weapons. To call it that is ignorant. Just because a gun looks like a full-auto M4 does into make it an assault weapon, or even an assault "style" weapon. An AR-15 has the exact same capability as a mini-14 ranch rifle, it just looks like an M4 and it easier to mount accessories.

According to FBI statistics, REPORTED data (meaning there are countless events that go unreported, I have had a few), firearms are used to legally defend law abiding citizens over 200,000 times every year. That swamps the amount of gun-crime by a large amount.

Gun violence deaths (not suicides, accidents, or self defense) are one of the smallest causes of death in the country.

Making firearms harder to obtain just disarms law abiding citizens. Someone who has no history, no red flags, and no mental illness could bypass any gun law you can think of, and STILL commit a mass murder. You cannot ban free will.

We have a social dysfunction in our country, not a gun problem. There is less regard for human life, disconnection from human interaction, lack of community, lack of morals, and irresponsible parenting. Kids go to school where they are further neglected by apathetic teachers in a system set up to put them in perpetual debt. No, it is not guns we need to focus on. We need to focus on our American Culture.

There is a very real reason why we have the first and second amendment so early in our Bill of Rights. Our culture is sick, and it's affecting both of them. We have rights, but not requirements to be mature, responsible, and moral.


...With that said, if there ever were a "gun ban" in the U.S. It would be the largest civil war ever fought and would literally change the planet.

Common arguments:

"You don't need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt or protect your family."
In regards to hunting, yes, sometimes you do need follow up shots, and yes, in any environment not extremely urban a semi-auto rifle or a shotgun is the most effective way to defend your home. (I'm not going into ballistic data) So, you're wrong. In any case, the second amendment was not created to protect hunting and home-defense rights. It was written to allow the populace to be armed so they could resist tyranny and invasion. The former just come with that by proxy. The right to defend yourself from violence with violence is a natural, human right. It just so happens that guns are the current best method. If it were written 1000 years ago it would refer to blades and clubs.

"If we had stricter gun laws, less people would kill others with guns"
There's a difference between "tighter laws", which actually increase gun crime, and a "gun ban" which usually shows an initial small decrease in gun-crime specifically but a large increase in overall violent crime.

"There's no reason a civilian needs a military-style assault weapon."
The reason assault weapons are designated as such is because they can assault or defend a position and provide suppressing fire. To do that you need fully automatic guns or a bunch of trained soldiers. No civilian sporting rifle is automatic, and you would NEVER see any military operative or soldier take a semi-auto rifle into battle. Appearance does not make a sporting rifle more dangerous. That's what civilian weapons are, sporting guns.
That said, if the original purpose of the second amendment is correctly interpreted, civilians SHOULD be able to own full-auto machineguns, as those are the currently used small arms of the modern military.

"If you are defending yourself, you don't need to shoot to kill, so you don't need a gun in the first place"
This is highly dependent on each individual situation, but regardless of weapon, if an encounter has escalated to a point where you have to use potentially lethal force, then shooting center mass is the safest way to implement a gun in self defense. Brandishing a weapon in effort to intimidate, shooting at the legs, arms etc all endanger the user and bystanders and open up the victim to legal problems. Yes, you can be sued for shooting in the leg and not the chest. The purpose of shooting with lethal force in justified self-defense is to stop the attack, and the best way to do that means targetting vital organs.

Look at my Steam profile pic. Also, note that I am a convicted felon... Restrictive gun laws keeps guns out of law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Criminals / felons will break the law and get guns no matter what.

^ Beginning is gold.

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3