Does gun control help?

No.

Gun control measures never account for criminals that could care less about rules and laws.

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens is the answer.

I want to start by offering my profound condolences and sympathies to the families of the victims of this bitter incident. Losing a family member the hardest thing someone could go through. My thoughts and prayers are truly with you at this time.
----------
My comments on the Connecticut shooting:
This is NOT a gun problem issues. It’s not.
This guy had a MENTAL PROBLEM!
THAT IS THE TRUE ISSUE. The government should worry about helping mental kids. Sorry to say it like that. but its the truth. This mental kid had his mind set to do what he did. Come on, a person that kill his own mom! What guy with his right mind does that? Sorry but the guy had mental issues. And to top it off the family knew their son had issues.(Read online).

So it’s not the Gun issue. He was going to do what he did not matter what, am sure he would have done it with anything he had available. He could have used a baseball bat. Now would the president ban baseball bats?
guns and baseball bat are both sports, hobbies, and weapons depending how you use them.
Clear example: Friday morning, a man walked through the entrance of an elementary school in China and, without warning, began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Attacking children with a knife, and began ruthlessly cutting down children at the school. Before he was subdued, nearly two dozen were hit. China -- which has strict gun control laws –
I am also sorry for all does families from china as well!

Bottom line /my 2cents:
President is wrong in trying to enforce some kind of ban on gun sales, rifle sales or ammo sales.
This is not the way to go.
He will only weaken the good law-abiding people.
The people that have guns to defend their families.
The people that have earned the right to own and carry a gun.( keeping a clean record )
People that one day might one day stop a idiot from doing harm to people at a mall etc...
I don’t know about Connecticut but here in Texas we have the right to legally own guns (as long as you’re approved by Gov. clean record etc. etc...) Then we have the RIGHT to obtain a permit to conceal your hand gun.
I obtained my permit because a have 3 beautiful babies and a beautiful wife, that I have to take care of.
As a father I am going to protect my children and wife at all cost. Like every father will do.
So I got my permit. Its legal, I have earned by being a law-abiding citizen.
This at least balances the odds against the bad guy with a gun.
(You cannot protect your family by throwing rocks at a guy that is shooting at you or your family.)
That’s what the president is trying to do! By banning and restricting guns/rifles/ammo.
I am a big pusher of Campus carry and believe that if a teacher or several teachers had a gun at that time of the shooting. The outcome would have been much different.

Meanwhile today....

Well said!

Gun control helps to protect criminals
from their victims.





David

Of course it's a mental problem. The difficulty is that mental problems are less easily detected than guns, and harder to regulate.

@all
There is no viable move to deprive gun owners of having guns. The movement favors banning assault type weapons. If that saves just one mass killing, it will be worth it.

The Constitution forbids banning assault weapons. What the movement proposes is an atrocity against American freedom.

I never fail to tense up when I hear "If it saves just one________, it's worth it."

At that point all thinking has fled.

Whatever toots your horn.

Un huh

The movement is and irrational movement and it's much smaller than you think

So to that question "take away guns and they will use explosives" they do that now . So how does more automatic weapons to civilians can prevent this. The tragic events that happened recently should prove something .guns kill people!!!!be it semi automatic or full auto. Being a Scotsman and I live near dunblane I understand the difference between our cultures .but since when do we need to suppress a burgler with an automatic rifle .i understand the need to protect your family but do you need a weapon more powerfull than what is standard issue to your military . For example why use a Barrett 50 cal sniper weapon to swat a fly.big exaggeration I know but these weapons fall easily in to the wrong hands that commit these heinous crimes.again different country and different constitution but please understand , from our experience ,more guns mean more crime.

Just to let you know I'm a serving member of the British armed forces. I've worked with the US armed forces and find them the most professional body of men.they do you proud.

It helps to distinguish semi-auto from full-auto. If you just refer to automatic, then it'll usually be assumed that you mean full-auto, and that would not apply to this fight, which is only about semi-autos.

Specifically, this fight is mostly about cosmetic features relating to semi-autos, like whether a semi-auto has a pistol grip on it or not.

The Freedom Haters want to ban such cosmetic features (even though they are harmless and there is no reason to do so). And the US Constitution says that is not allowed.

There are many ways to measure a gun's power, but I don't think many Americans are getting weapons more powerful than those of the US military.

Stats tend to indicate that having more guns does not make for more crime.

Ok, I was wrong to try to distinguish between them,but as a serving soldier I'm taught to attack an enemy position in "single shots into likely enemy positions" for two reasons: to stop bullet penetration resulting in blue on blue . And to help prevent civilian casualties .this is in the urban environment and cannot be held as rule of law.what I want to say is , what purpose does a civilian require to hold a weapon that is capable to match and potentially defeat an enemy of an army as such as NATO or the US ARMY?

Ps. The weapons used in the latest atrocity are quite high tech in comparison to normal issue .for us Brits it the modernised A2 and Could someone update me as to what're the general issue for the US Military? Please correct me if I'm wrong here . I just want to highlight the fact that very few civilians are trained in automatic weapons and conduct an annual weapons test as we military do in order for us to use these weapons in combat.give them to an untrained civilian and disaster is coming our way.please this is in no way a reflection of how I think the US conducts its Business,I'm just interested on the different way in which we both conduct it.

PPS . Military tend to use semi automatic more often as this reduces "punch through" so to speak compered to spraying a room and hope for the best.soldiers are trained to be
accurate trained shots.

PPS . Military tend to use semi automatic more often as this reduces "punch through" so to speak compered to spraying a room and hope for the best.soldiers are trained to be
accurate trained shots.

Distinguishing is good. I was trying to say distinguish more, for greater clarity.





Are you asking about semi-autos with high capacity magazines?

I can tell you what civilians tend to use them for: They are popular with varmint hunters. And they are popular for defending homes and businesses.


However, the US Constitution reverses the burden when it comes to what is allowed. The government has to have a good reason for banning something before it can be banned.

US citizens don't need to prove any need for something before they can have it. It is enough if the government can't come up with any reason to ban it.

So having a "required purpose" for a gun does not really fit in with US thinking.