I usually don't care too much for the gun debate (which is ironic because I live in Connecticut), but it's disgusting how many of you don't realize that gun control does not mean that government is going to take away your guns.
Gun control is a broad term, and it means exactly what you'd think: the control of violent firearms. That includes laws such as limiting sales to criminals, banning the use of military equipment (i.e. tanks, rocket launchers, machine guns, etc.), or requiring the buyer to pass a gun safety test.
When you say you don't agree with gun control, you're literally telling me you believe that anyone can any kind of weapon (pro tip: not even freedom toting libertarians agree with that). There is a line where can gun control can safely allow the sale of guns to gun enthusiasts without allowing the sale to criminals and those who would do us harm.
Point is, learn the definition, because if you don't agree with some sort of gun control, you basically believe in anarchy.
Semi relevant lingering question: Thousands of people who live in cities are killed by guns each year (including hundreds of children), and the public makes a huge display of Newtown. I don't want to pull the race card, but someone please justify this.
-
Edited by Y SO REACH BETA: 4/6/2013 7:23:02 PMThe past century has been increasingly intrusive gun control. Why is it not reasonable to think they will eventually ban guns all together? Many of the legislators proposing the gun control bills have publicly stated they eventually want a ban on less deadly weapons. The causes have yet to be addressed. The only thing that has been proposed are legislation that MIGHT reduce death in shootings which are in themselves very uncommon. And the the media reporting on shootings makes copy cats incredibly likely. In fact, Lanza committed the shooting just after the mall shooting in Oregon which likely set him into motion to commit the killing.