Gun Control

I should start this debate by saying that the Gun Control policies most people are advocating for are specifically to stop mentally disturbed people and violent criminals from obtaining weaponry. We are imposing limits on who can obtain weaponry. These types of gun laws will not pose much of a difficult for law abiding stable citizens. Few people care if these people have guns as well. "Gun Control" and "Gun Elimination" are not synonymous. I am Pro-Gun. To have a platform that says no gun control should exist and to simultaneously say that mentally disturbed individuals are the problem is to hold contradictory beliefs. Here are arguments for gun control, Again, Not gun bans or gun elimination. 1. Reason for Regulation If for no other reason, Guns should be regulated to prevent people with demonstrated mental instability, Violent crime records, Et cetera. These people have proven themselves dangerous, And at risk of being school shooters/et cetera. Many of the people who commit mass shootings would have been prevented with stronger or improved background check measures alone. (1) The majority on this list would've been prevented from getting a gun from background checks alone. Others get their guns from their parents. Gun safe requirements for households with children is an easy common sense requirement. 24+ hour waiting periods prior to the acquisition of one's first gun (not guns after the first) will prevent some crimes of passion or suicides, While constituting only a small burden on law abiding citizens. None of these requirements prevent law abiding citizens from acquiring weaponry. This is what we call 'common sense' gun control. Closing off the gun show, Or private sale, Loopholes, Is also common sense. If we can show many cases where mass shooters would've been stopped from acquiring weaponry with stronger background checks, One can easily see why private sellers should be required to background check prior to weapon purchase as well. You cannot simultaneously hold the position that mass shooters are mentally disturbed individuals and say we should not regulate guns. To say we shouldn't regulate guns is saying we should be OK with the mentally disturbed and violent criminals getting easy access to weaponry. To say that 'they can get their weapons even if its illegal' is a moot point. People can get drugs even if they're illegal. Should we not have laws against any drug? People will abort their children even if it illegal. Should it not be regulated? This is an argument you use for nothing else. Why do you use it here? The argument is that legal acquisition of things makes them easier to acquire, And some people will either not be able to afford the higher cost of obtaining weapons illegally, Or will give up prior to this. No one want to take a knife to a gun fight. The argument that 'they will switch to knives' is also asinine when it comes to regulation, Not bans. 2. Efficiency of Gun Regulation Whatever freedoms we have as individuals will come at a societal cost. There will be lives lost due to guns if we allow them to be legal. This is simply the price we pay. However, With moderate controls you can limit this negative cost while allowing law abiding citizens the right to their arms. A law in Connecticut in 1995 required a license as well as a background check prior to purchase of firearms. This required 8 hours of safety training to acquire said license as well as the passing of said background check. The check was conducted by local law enforcement, Not the sellers of the weaponry. The result was a 40% drop in firearm related crime. The repeal of a similar law in Missouri was met with a 25% increase in firearm related homicides. 3. Dangerous Ammunition We require licenses for people to drive vehicles. If you believe this is a good idea, But licensing guns is not then you have a serious problem on your hands. You can only kill so many people with a car, And you'll largely be taking yourself out at the same time. Guns are relatively cheap and efficient at killing. Even relatively untrained individuals can kill dozens of people before they are stopped. To require licenses for driving but not for owning weaponry and understanding its maintenance and safety (probably saving the person money in the end on both these fronts) is to hold contradictory positions based on little more than a literalist interpretation of the constitution. Dangerous ammunition such as Dragon's Breath (3) should certainly be regulated. If we're regulating RPGs there's no reason not to regulate these. They present serious fire hazards particularly in drought zones. Ensuring people understand the danger behind this kind of ammunition should be mandatory for public safety. To conclude, The position that weaponry and ammunition should not be regulated at all is untenable. You have to believe that mentally unstable and violent criminals should be allowed easy access to weaponry. That we should watch children have easy access to weaponry and punish the parents not at all. That we shouldn't even make an attempt to prevent mass shootings by said unstable individuals when the background checks that can prevent many are barely a minor burden on law abiding citizens. Waiting periods for one's first gun, Licensing requirements for one's first gun, Etc are hurdles that are undeniably beneficial. Law abiding citizens will not have problems getting weaponry even with GUN CONTROL measures in place. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht