Gun Control, Controversy, so keep it clean.

I wouldn't run to the bank with what any of them say. You can "study" all day long and still come to any conclusion you want as you can also cherry pick your historical data.

Here's what I do know, not based on studies or cherry picked history, but just my own observations and a little common sense.

Guns, by themselves, don't kill people, so regulating just guns will do nothing. You have to regulate the people holding the gun.

We have way too many guns in our country and many are in the wrong hands. There are many people that should not be allowed to have a gun. Identifying who these people are isn't always easy but I feel we could do much better.

I'm not at all opposed to some forms of gun control. My main objections is to just "feel good" gun control that makes it hard for people that should be able to buy a gun to have one, and does nothing to keep guns from people that shouldn't have them. If making it harder for good people to buy a firearm reduces the number of bad people getting them, then so be it. It's a small price to pay.

I think that whatever we end up doing about gun control should be on a national level. None of this state by state garbage.

As for the NRA, I don't see them as the boogie man that many on the left do, but I do believe they could be doing a lot more than they are to promote gun safety and keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

As for our schools and other soft targets, we can do a lot to cut down on the risk without even mentioning guns.

Nice to see there are at least few things on which we can agree.

It was also in place to help prevent an aggressive move by other nations...
UK at that time may have begrudgingly agreed to independence, but Phrance and Spain were looking on with envious eyes, at a nation just right for taking over, without the protection from UK.
Spain had the southern Americas, and a land invasion from there would have been easy, Phrance had a LOT of ships, and, were, we are told, "Considering" a joint exercise with Spain under the overwatch of the Catholic faith.

our poll tax was specifically a tax on voting, which was levied in order to make it impossible for the poor to be able to afford to vote.

I agree that one ought to be not actively avoiding one's duty as a citizen of the country in order to be eligible to vote.

the thing we disagree on is whether we can solve the problem of the wrong people having guns by making it easier for any people to get guns.

it makes no more sense than the people who think the cure for the drug problem is to legalize all drugs.

so you're saying we should go back to selling large quantities of explosives to just anybody, as well, because you don't want explosives to be a distraction from radicalization?

We have many “common sense” laws on the books.
Felons are not allowed to purchase or even possess a firearm.
If you have a domestic violence conviction you will not pass a NICS check and be denied.
Of course the government has to actually report the domestic violence conviction to the FBI. As was the case with the USAF NOT following the law a prohibited person passed a NICS check as the law was not followed. If existing laws don’t work how will piling on more laws help?

Gun free zones are obviously not working as only the bad guys have the guns, and as was seen in Florida the police are not always that gung ho to intervene to save lives.

Chicago. Need I say more?

How do you go about taking a right away? Is it the seriousness of the accusation? How does one handle due process? How can one be assured their property is returned if they are found to not be a prohibited person as many police organizations have a record of damaging or destroying guns before they can be returned.

Then there is the elephant in the room. Why are so many people killing so many people. Whether a hammer or a gun, we need to answer that question. Anything else is a bandaid on a lacerated artery.

the answer to that is NOT to refuse band-aids; which is what categorically yelling "but right to bear arms" at every suggestion we find a way to keep highly effective firearms out of the hands or other manipulatory appendages of the kind of people who go on killing sprees essentially is. my rescue team all carry basic first aid kits on our gear. if we have a patient in the bottom of a hole who is actively bleeding to death, we're not going to leave him bleeding because we don't have sutures in our kit. we're going to slap something onto the wound and apply pressure to slow down the bleeding until we can get the patient to the medics.

I agree that the set of rules we have isn't working. your solution is to not change any rules. my solution is to change rules. einstein is credited with saying the definition of insanity is trying the same thing and expecting different results. if allowing the air force to decide whether or not to tell civilian law enforcement they discharged a guy for not being trustworthy with a gun resulted in the mass murder in Texas, wouldn't the smart decision to be to change the law to say they HAVE to tell civilian law enforcement when they discharge a guy for not being trustworthy with a gun?

we need to patch the holes that make it hard to enforce the rules we have.

I've said in the past that we really should have a federal law that requires periodic review of all rules and laws and laws that are confusing, redundant, or obsolete must be revised or repealed as appropriate.