I firmly believe in gun control. I always lean on something or lie down to steady my aim when I shoot.

I agree, we need to enforce the laws we have. And those people who own guns, and their children shoot themselves or others, the parent should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Reckless endangerment!

i would ban buying guns and ammunition without a special license for hunting and hold yearly amnesties to encourage people to hand firearms into police. i would generally aim to reduce the number of firearms on the street. if you look at the statistics america is apawling for the number of people shot every year.

There is nothing to "deal with" - enforce present laws. . .

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. Keep them out of the hands of criminals, wacko family members and the Vice President. And that was not "hunting" that the Vice President was doing. Cage raised birds, hand placed in brush and driven to the place where they are, is not "hunting." It's killing.

I think ProRingo is on to something. His views encompass what most of us see as the middle ground. Excellent points. My only proviso would be regarding the NRA, there needs, unfortunately, to be a counterweight to the zealotry of the anti-gun crowd, resisting everything they do by being equally devoid of discretion so as not to "lose" the argument and careen toward the slippery slope. As idiotic as some of the NRA stands seem to be, they get a lot of play in the US media. There is an equal and opposite (equally and oppositely stupid) agenda on the other side of this issue, which needs to be combatted. If you don't think the leaders of the anti-gun crowd want to simply ban all guns (guess who would wind up with guns and who would not) and gun ownership, you're not paying very close attention.

I guess you could say that I hold a rather nuanced view on gun control. I don't believe in taking away people's rights to own guns. We all have a right to defend ourselves if the need arises. I don't think that banning guns is the way to keep guns out of childrens' hands either. Why should everyone suffer because of the acts of a few irresponsible adults who fail, either because of stupidity or neglect, to lock up their guns and limit their child or childrens' access to them? That would be like banning 'R' rated movies outright because underage kids sneak into them. It's throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Having said that, I also do not agree with the NRA, which seems to hold that the citizenry should have the right to own more powerful guns, such as AK-47s and perhaps even rocket launchers. I can understand the practicality of owning a simple handgun or shotgun in order to defend your house. But what does a law-abiding citizen need with an AK-47? I also agree with others who have said that guns need to be kept out of the hands of criminals. Exactly how the government goes about doing this is another issue. This issue is one that tends to have two well-defined extremes, if you will, but no middle ground. There needs to be a middle ground that acknowledges the practicality and need for a private citizen to keep a gun handy for safety reasons, but also realizes that the need to keep more powerful weapons is on shakier ground.

Guns don't kill people, it's the idiots that pull the trigger. You cannot punish law abiding citizens and take away their constitutional rights by enforcing outrageous gun control laws. If you really want to crack down on crime, give the police force more power, money, and better training resources.

banning weapons will make it worse. We know this was one of Kerry's idea's. I mean, some people need guns for self-defense and hunting, especially the army

Simply enforce the 'well regulated militia' provision of the Second Ammendment. Everyone that wants to own a gun also has to join the regular Army, Reserves, or National Guard. I imagine that would change things quite a bit.

this will sound simplistic, but guns need to be taken out of the hands of criminals. perhaps if someone commits a violent crime using a gun they should have their hand chopped off. at the very least, it would take them a while to become proficient using their other hand.

Gun control laws work only when you have people who will obey laws, and law abiding gun owners are not the problem.

Amazing. I see the naives came out of the woodwork for this one. Only law enforcement and military personnel could use them. And criminals, of course. Don't ever forget them. And while we're at it, let's all leave our doors unlocked at night since afterall, we WOULD be living in a perfect world where EVERYONE would obey the law, right? The only crime that gun control deters is the unspeakable act of self-defense against someone who never respected your laws/property rights/etc. in the first place, who wishes to harm you and/or take from you by force various things of value (loved ones, material possessions, etc.), and-by-the-way-exactly-who-are-you-to-stand-up-and-defend-yourself-all-the-while-denying-someone-who-never-had-a-chance-their-very-livelihood-and-right-to-steal-from-and-harm-you-without-consequence, anyway? Get me the ACLU...stat!!! I wanna ask you liberals, progressives, neo-socialists, etc., would it really make you feel any safer if you knew that a man who would never threaten you in the first place had a harder time obtaining a firearm than he does now? I am VERY curious about that one, because is it not scary enough at times knowing that there are millions among us who wish to rob, kill, or maim us who have already long since dismissed any notion of morality or legality? Oh, but stricter gun control laws counteract the proliferation of automatic weapons on our streets. Big F-in' Deal. Let me break this down for y'all, as I know some of you are a bit slow: automatic weapon in the hands of a criminal = Trouble (with a capital T) right here in River City; automatic weapon in the hands of a law-abiding citizen = no threat, save that of a marginally higher level of security for said citizen, as THAT is clearly a threat to the a$$hole who wants to jack him. In summary, the only guaranteed outcome in what is otherwise a total crapshoot that we call gun control, is that the stricter the controls, the farther the scale is tipped, the more the ratio is inflated in favor of the looters, thugs, rapists, murderers, thieves, Marxists, etc. New number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens < Old number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens, while New number of guns owned by criminals = Old number of guns owned by criminals; therefore, what was once x / y = z is now (x - n) / y = z, where 'x' represents legal ownership, 'y' represents illegal ownership, 'z' represents the ratio of legal to illegal ownership, and 'n' represents the degree to which legal ownership drops while illegal ownership ('y') remains constant. But alas, I have a solution: let's make crime illegal. Yeah, that oughta get 'er done. Or have we tried that already? Mmm...

The only gun control should be stiffer penalties on felons and lawbreakers who are caught with firearms! Not taking away rights for good citizens to defend themselves.

Enforce it. The second amendment would become a thing of the past. No private citizen would own a lethal weapon, and thus, brutal crime would dissapear. All illegal guns would be melted down for medal for the space program. Only law enforcement and military personnel could use them.

Certainly an interesting issue. In the inner cities, the problem is severe enough that the gun-control lobby seems to have the best ideas; in rural areas, there is no problem at all, and I don't have any trouble supporting the NRA point of view. Since the US contains both cities and rural areas, we clearly need a compromise position.

This would definatly be a sticky situation because of the 2nd ammendment. Even the president can't just go and get rid of it, the issue would clog up the supreme court for years. I would, however try to impliment a change in the way that guns are controlled. 1) I got this idea from Chris Rock, but don't let the source fool you it's a good one. I would make bullets ridiculously expensive. 2) I'd also make it so that that the bullets had to be sold the same way as cigarettes and hard alcohol. Behind the counter like cigarettes are and in a specially licenced store like hard alcohol. I know that this is already somewhat how things work, but they are sold in stores like Wal-mart, I'd have something like a bullet commision store. 3) I would ration bullets. I'd make it so that anyone would have to account for every bullet that they used from their last purchace before they could buy more and there would be a max that any one gun owner could buy in a certian ammount of time. Hunting rifles would have a higher allowence than hand guns. 4) I would have restrictions on how many of any type of gun a person could be in possesion of. 5) I would make it illegal for people to sell their gun to anyone else. If they wanted to sell their gun it would have to be though a gun commision. This is only a basic idea of how I'd handle guns with out eliminating the second ammendment.