Gun control means using both hands...

Gun control, gun control, we need more gun controls to protect innocents. *Runs around waving hands in the air and repeats himself.*

Okay ... sorry ... I claim temporary insanity there from listening to too much news.

I would hope that anyone that used to read this already knows my stance on this issue ... but to be clear:

WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THIS COUNTRY.

Actually, I would personally argue that there are currently gun control laws on the books that we should get rid of .... but that's not likely to happen any time soon. Once you allow an encroachment of liberty, it becomes harder and harder to get those liberties back.

I know that there have been several tragedies lately involving shooters, there are several such events scattered through our history. And my sympathies go out to the families of those who lost children or other loved ones in these terrible events. Gun control, however, isn't the answer to the problem, because the problem isn't guns. The problem is people that have no regard for life OR laws, and you can not write a gun control law that will fix THAT problem.

We need to protect people by banning 'Assault' weapons....

There are a couple of problems with this argument. First there technically is no weapon classification of 'assault' weapon. It was a legal definition that was created by a legislature looking at weapons and selecting aspects of weapons that they considered 'scary'. Secondly, we have, in the past, had an 'Assault' weapons ban in this country, and yet we still had innocent people killed in mass shooting, the shooting in Columbine in 1999 being a one of the more prominent incidents.

Also, let's look at some of the shootings, including Columbine. In most of these cases the shooter did not have any weapon that was (or is in the current legislation either) considered an 'assault' weapon. The exception being the shooter in the Colorado theater who I believe did have a AR-15 style rifle (plus several pistols, and a shotgun iirc). The shooters in Columbine used shotguns and pistols, the school shooting in Newtown was carried out with pistols (he had a rifle in the trunk of his car, but it was not used in the shooting) not 'assault' weapons. The shooting of Representative Giffords was done with a pistol, not an 'assault' weapon. In fact, 'assault' weapons usually aren't used because they are difficult to conceal in the first place.

The fact is simply that they are trying to ban them not because they are causing a lot of the shootings, but rather because they don't like them. Should we let them ban something just because they don't like it? Are we going to start letting them put people in jail just because they don't like them too? Wake up.

People don't need all these bullets, extended mags should be banned...

This has got to be one of the dumbest. This is the same type of idea that leads to the passing of laws that say that you can't buy a soda larger than 16 oz. Fine ... I can't buy a large, I'll but two mediums. Likewise all a shooter has to do is bring a couple more magazines. This is going to do NOTHING to stop shootings, at most you can say that it may give people a chance to escape while the shooter reloads. Except, again, in many cases these shooters have brought multiple weapons and rather than reloading they simply switch weapons ... they also tend to carry out shootings in areas that they are reasonably certain that there is not going to be any immediate armed response.

The logic is basically, shooting 6 people is okay, but 7 is too many. It's not a law designed to stop the shootings, it is a law designed for the sole purpose of limiting peoples options. A person more inclined toward conspiracy thoughts than I am might even draw the conclusion that the intent is specifically to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves from the government. I don't believe that is the intent, consciously at least, as I don't think that the people pushing such legislation are smart enough to think that far ahead in the first place.

Every gun purchase needs to go through a background check (and all states should have to report to the federal database)....

This one looks innocent enough, and I don't specifically have an issue with reasonable background checks for buying a firearm. There are, however, many issues with the ideas about this as well. Requiring background checks for private sales is nigh on unenforceable without some means of tracking the sale of the weapon without weapon registration. So either they are going to have to institute weapon registry (we'll leave off the multitudes of problems with this for another ramble) or they are going to ultimately ban private sales by making them so much of a hassle for the average gun owner that most people won't bother - though I'm sure that gun store owners would love this aspect.

Keep in mind that the Newtown shooter failed a background check and wasn't allowed to buy firearms so he killed his mother and stole hers. The background check did it's job, and yet this failed to prevent the shooting. Many of the other shooters did go through background checks, but there was nothing in their background that prevented them from owning a firearm. If anything, THAT is the issue that needs to be looked into, but there are a lot of dangers there as well. Who can put you into the database, what definitions are they using, and what means does an individual have to appeal if they find that the information in the federal database is incorrect? Currently there is no requirement for the government to correct inaccuracies in the database even if you can PROVE that the information about you is in error.

In the end the biggest problem with gun control legislation is ... CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS. Do you really think that someone planning on going to a theater with the INTENT of shooting people and killing them is going to CARE that the extended magazine in his assault rifle, the armor piercing rounds, and the tear gas and body armor he's wearing can not be legally owned? Is he going to see the 'gun free' zone sign and turn around foiled in his plan because it's illegal to take a gun in there?

Why are we seeing a rise in these types of incidents? Because people don't value life, they don't respect the rights of others, nor do they respect themselves. We live in a culture that promotes the victim mentality ... everyone is a victim, no one is to blame. If someone does something wrong it's not their fault. That's what we need to fix ... and until we do the only thing gun control laws are going to do is let people smile and puff out their chest and say 'we DID something'. Only to start the whole process again after the next shooting.

Things go a lot easier when you fix the right problem instead of playing politics with tragic events and rushing around trying to pass your agenda. Of course the real reason that they won't do that, is that it's a social problem, not a legal one ... it's society that needs to change.