Now, I want to say this before anything else, these are my views and statistics I have seen, if you know something different, please, in a respectful tone, correct me.  
  
As many of you guys now, I'm in the military, and this would seem to make me pro-gun, but that has nothing to do with it. Most people going into basic haven't even held a weapon before, much less a firearm. This makes the military more of a neutral part of this discussion. 
  
I have a link I'd like you to watch before you guys go farther, now, I don't agree with everything he says, nor everything he does, but I have to say that he addressed the problem with ignorance and gun control with a great point. Most people don't really do much research about guns, it may be true that there are MANY guns sold in the US, but this is people owning more than one firearm, most people I know who have a rifle, have a pistol, making it an average or two firearms per owner I know. Now, the video:  
  
Now this brings up something interesting, most people haven't educated themselves on the matter, but are willing to sign a petition, taking this right away from the responsible people who have gone through an extensive background check to get to own their weapon. Plus, the part about the NRA selling weapons? What kind of material is this guys reading/ hearing? Appearance seems to have much to do with the hatred of weapons, because of the "tactical" look. The handgrips on the AR-15 are only for attachments, for instance, I enjoy using a forward-handgrip. It makes shooting from kneeling and prone much easier. But, it does nothing more than that. It just allows for people to customize their weapon. Which, in fact actually creates an easier time using, which if you have it for anything, makes it more effective, for self-defense, it makes it easier to maneuver, than having a standard hunting rifle.  
  
But I can put up with things like appearance, but if we changed the look, does that change functionality? No, it really doesn't. A pink rifle shoots the same as a black one as a silver etc. It just changes the cosmetics of it. But what about some politicians stating that the AR-15 can shoot outrageous amounts of ammo? Well, it just depends on the shooter, I prefer one well placed shot to many shots going down-range. And, it doesn't matter what action you have, if you are proficient in a weapons system then it makes no difference.  
  
So, I've shown these small snippets of evidence... What about cold hard statistics? 400 POINTS. I was blown away by this. That's a LOT! {url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html/[url] This article shows a steady decline with one spike. At 1990 there was a significant increase, but it drops 400 points since then. 400 POINTS. I was blown away by this. That's a LOT! {url]http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778268.html Here's another link, this one (third column) shows a spike from the 79 to 82 and a relatively steady rate until 94. Now, look at the latest year, more than 7,000 less murders since 95... This means that, at least deathly crimes, are one a steady decrease since the early 90's. Crime is lower than it has been since the 70's, and if it continues, it'll be at a historical low. This means that less die. On to my next point. 
  
http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/gun-sales-boomhomicides-tank  
 Sorry about the long link there... Now look at the third chart there... Guns sales have gone up, but murder down? Why is this? It's because people aren't killing as much, in the first place? Does this mean that more guns means less crimes, possibly, but I'm not trying to talk about that, I want to prove that guns and violence aren't one and the same. People have tried blaming many things to try to push their agenda, but the difference between most other arguments and this one, is that guns aren't usually as close and personal as thing such as video games, music or movies... You can't run away from those things, you can run away from guns, you never have to see a real gun in your life. (Saving the cops pistols, you might see those...) You never have to "accidentally" see one. With music, you here it everywhere... If you're on this site, you most likely play some form of video game, and you also have most likely watched some movie or TV show in the recent past.  
  
What annoys me, is when people bite the bait of politicians and media trying to push an agenda, especially when they don't do their research. Always, read and inform yourself, the media doesn't give news, it give propaganda, they want to sell and or make something happen, they don't care what or who gets hurt in the process. It's up to you to make sure that they don't give you bait that you'll eat. Please, do research... This is something that I view as an important right given to us, let us protect it with evidence, instead of dogma. 

Just pointing out a few things from your post that I think can be misleading. I think we should have gun control, but I don't think making a post explaining why is necessary.

The first video should be taken with a grain of salt. We don't know how many clips he had to throw out before making the video. I'm sure if they had the statistics in front of them without the guy trying to trick them a lot of them would've made better choices.
Many "responsible" gun owners get guns without doing a background check so I'm not sure why someone would complain about that.
Crime rate per 100,000 people may have dropped significantly, but you need to remember that the population is increasing at the same time.
I agree with you that people do need to educate themselves, but its becoming harder to do so. Like you said the media will say anything as long as they make money so its easy for people on both sides to be influenced.

earthwarrior : What kind of gun control do you believe in though? Some control is necessary, but too much means that there is no point in having that freedom.  
  
And, yes the video has many flaws, but those people were still being stupid, they shouldn't sign anything without knowing about the issue. They were fine with a 30-06 rifle, but not the cartridge, which means that there is no use in the rifle. Also, they like to make sure that the "assault" rifle isn't there, but the round is fine. Which makes no sense, in the end they were going on size, or looks, or what they heard their favorite news channel talk about, which would the AR-15. They were willing to get rid of the right of those who use them properly, for the few that have used them wrongly, but that doesn't change the fact of where they got them. Most unregistered guns, are illegal, but some aren't, if you make your own weapon then it's not, but don't go around broadcasting this, as Police and neighbors could take it the wrong way, and use this as a way to make you get in trouble, for something that's legal.  
  
And, the responsible people getting rifles without the check are getting them from people who are registered to sell, legally without needing a check done. Plus, if a felon is caught with a weapon, they are in double the amount of trouble. They are in trouble for having a weapon, and they now are in violation of the right they lost for a reason they already knew. They knew they shouldn't have one, and got one anyway, it's on them. Not us, also, they have more than the options I would consider buying. The black-market is easy enough to find if you look hard enough, and if I were a criminal, I would find the market I want, and with ease.

I think who is able to get guns and which guns are allowed should be regulated. I don't think locking them up is necessary. I think sellers should be required to do background checks on their buyers. Felons, suspected terrorists, and the mentally ill for example shouldn't be able to have them. I think which guns would be allowed would depend on how fast they could fire And I'm not sure how I feel about ammo. 
When you said that someone could make their own gun legally do you mean they make it with a kit?
The problem isn't a felon getting caught with a gun its the fact that they are able to get one the same way someone who wasn't convicted could.

earthwarrior : If I'm not mistaken, it's actually legal to make a homemade 12 gauge shotgun from a couple sections of 3/4" pipe and a nail. While I'm on the fence as to whether that should be legal or not, I don't think that making it illegal would be a deterrent. Your average soccer mom or back alley wino aren't the ones going around murdering people and anyone who intends to commit something along those lines is going to do so regardless. That's the fundamental flaw with law itself; it's a threat. Someone tells you that they'll throw you in prison for doing something, but there's no real way to prevent them from doing it. When it comes down to it, a criminal is a criminal before they've actually committed a crime.

earthwarrior : The rate at which a gun is fired is limited to the action, currently, unless you go through extensive training, you cannot get anything other than a semi automatic. You have to go through a lot of trouble to get the kind of firepower that can fire rapidly. All actions just take time to learn. Look at the second video I posted, he has to cock the weapon before he fires every shot, but he did that in very little time. It just depends on how much time you want to invest in learning to be proficient with a weapons system.

m0ssb3rg935 : Yeah I was thinking something like that, but I didn't know it was so easy to do. I know these laws are just threats like you said which is why I don't really care about it as much anymore. There are always going to be ways to have access to them either legally or with a black market.

What is needed is not more laws,but enforce the ones we already have. We also need to make training with a gun mandatory that way,people will see they are not toys or to be used irresponsibly. Laws really only protect one type of person:criminals. Mossberg is correct,you can make what is known as a slamfire gun. It is not super practical,but in a pinch it works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVhceWZiYPQ

Does anyone believe individual citizens have right to carry about atomic bombs? You know, for self-defense?

Of course not. No one does. The above question is simply to illustrate that everyone agrees we need some sort of weapon control. There are two parts: restricting weapons and restricting individuals.

As for weapon restrictions, I think i'm against extended magazines and automatic fire. Those things are use to mow people down, and I can't think of a scenario where I must mow down a crowd to be moral. Otherwise, let it fly.

Restricting individuals sounds much better to me. Felons cannot have weapons, the mentally incompetent cannot have weapons. Also, those that have weapons must register their weapons. This ensures that weapons are accounted for if a crime with a weapon is committed. Unregistered weapons are those that people don't want the government to know about. Hiding this fact is only useful for using the weapons illegally.

Txgangsta : One thing, extended mags aren't for mowing people down... It is used to increase capacity, it has more than just the purpose you thought of. Competitive shooting would be a great thing to do with it, hunting dangerous animals such as bears another. The amount of rounds I can shoot has nothing to do with how many people I could potential kill, it only takes a couple of seconds to reload, and there are many "tricks" to speed reloading... Have you seen how fast competitive shooters can reload almost any weapon?   
  
The problem with modern gun control is that they don't use the right methods to restrict the people who are able to use weapons, since the legal definition of sane, can change, a felon is by definition a law breaker, or at least was at one point, that leaves those who are considered mentally competent/ incompetent... This is also hazy by legal definition, since it is defined by the judge who is ruling a case. And, those on the "no fly list" could be on it for anything... Senators and Congressmen can end up on the list, and they are the ones making national law... this means that there are many inconsistencies... So if they want to restrict people, they need to make sure to get down a system that works. (And don't get me wrong, the people who use weapons shouldn't just be able to walk in, buy a weapon and walk out.) Some restriction is necessary, but the right kind, not what we currently have.

darthyoda : If its competitive shooting, sure, have extended mags. But you don't need extended mags for self-defense or other morally-permissible uses. Competitive shooting is not the norm.

I'm fine with control reformation. I just don't want to give the thumbs up unthinkingly. Generally speaking, I'm part of the gun rights camp. My big part that makes yall shakey should be that I demand registration of all firearms. Unregistered firearms shouldn't be tolerated.

Gun control only serves one purpose: keep law-abiding citizens from defending themselves. Just as drug prohibition was a miserable failure, so is gun prohibition/strict control. Just look at Chicago: more people have died there because of guns than US military in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past 10 years. And yet the city has the most severe gun laws in the country.

I oppose ANY sort of gun registry. It's the first step towards confiscation, as it happened when the Nazis took power and used the Weimar gun registry to confiscate guns from their opponents. Don't laugh; too many politicians in this country would gladly do it if it weren't for the rule of law that still keeps their totalitarian desires at bay... for now.

IF people are to not get guns, due process must be done correctly first. Keeping people from getting guns only because they are on the SUSPECTED terrorist list or have mental diseases is not enough. In the first case the list is completely arbitrary and has no known legal process, whereas the second case would encourage people NOT to report the problems.

Fun fact: all shootings but 2 or 3 in the past 50 years happened in... gun-free zones

Guns cannot be in control of one group, nor can guns be given to anyone.

So why are mass murdering guns (assault rifles) being sold in america, to psychopaths and cops
How does that help but tip the scales in favour of only the police having guns

Its just a different set of well-armed thugs at that point