if there is a will, there is a way..

If they want them bad enough, they will find a way..

people want drugs bad enough, they find them, and if they're caught, they go to jail (which is a little harsh, Portugal, The Netherlands, have a softer approach, I think their way leads to less drug abusers) The possibility of people breaking the law - is Never a good excuse to Not write a new law - Honestly!

@mistymoon77 I personally hate guns. I don't understand the enjoyment people get from killing things. However, I'm not other people, and my likes and dislikes don't matter much to those that enjoy it. I would be in favor of MUCH stronger gun laws and outlawing military grade weapons for private use is right at the top of the list. If you want to shoot a military grade weapon, then join the military. Do I think people will break the law? Yes, I do, but there must be substantial consequences for people who do. That's just an opinion I hold.

@paul1967 Not everyone that has a gun kills things. C’mon man. I have a gun for home protection. A lot better than waiting 20 minutes or more waiting for a cop to save your ass if someone breaks into your home.

@balou I understand that some people carry it merely for the thought that it may one day protect them, but if that gun is an AK47 assault rifle with a bumpski stock, I think you're taking things too far.

@paul1967 it’s a 9mm glock pistol. It’s better to have it, and not need it than to need it and not have it.

@balou I genuinely mean no disrespect, I admitted that I don't like any type of gun, but in my post, I also recognized that what "I like" or don't like is not something that holds any relevance to the argument. I am only making a case here for military grade weapons in the hands of civilians. Not all guns.

@paul1967 I have one for protection and I do like to target shoot. I am not out killing things as you put it. Thats drawing up conclusion not accurate to say about everyone.

@mistymoon77 I have no issue with that. My concern is with assault weapons. I'm not trying to be abrasive. I feel like I made that point clear and maybe I'm wrong, and it's nothing, but it feels like it's a valid supportable and reasonable argument and nobody wants to talk about it because they don't want to acknowledge that we need to do something about it. Honestly, I'm not singling you out, but this seems to be a common trend when I discuss gun regulations with pro-gun supporters. They focus in on what I'm not saying or what I have previously conceded too and, ignore the point I am making.

Being a gun owner, I agree.. many think making them illegal is going to solve the problem, its not.

I could not agree with you more. @mistymoon77

@mistymoon77 There's tons that still could be without any sort of blanket ban. Civilians don't need ar-15s and such for example.

@Druvius I agree.. assault rifles are not needed for anything other than for war. They shouldn't be sold at all to the general public. But you know if there is a will, there is a way of getting anything you want over the internet or black market, is why I posted this..

@Druvius @mistymoon77 @LEPeff I have a lot of respect for all of you. You all have given me great feedback, and I have enjoyed reading your posts. I'm never going to agree with anyone 100% of the time, and I do think that your statement, that we who oppose guns spew every false argument is in itself false. I think there are very valid arguments to be made to ban guns (if not all at least ones that can kill large groups of people in a few seconds.) I think just like politics both sides get so invested in their position that neither takes a minute to consider what the other is saying.

Here is a statement I think we can all agree on. Americans are divided on whether the country’s gun deaths could be reduced through tougher laws on gun ownership. "Some people" argue that legal restrictions on gun ownership could save lives. "But, others," say that stricter gun laws would do nothing to change the behavior of violent criminals.

• This paragraph was pulled from an online article, but I made a small change to this paragraph. It pitted liberals being all for and conservatives being all against and since that is fallacious and useless point I changed it to "some people" and But, others: [theguardian.com]

Here is my take on this and then I'll listen and consider your response. Both statements are likely correct. My argument would be: Would we see few deaths, by accidental gun-related killings, violent criminals (less likely to be able to act on impulse control issues) and irresponsible, violent people who let their anger control their actions?

One of my biggest concerns is the failure to enforce existing gun laws have resulted in dozens of people being murdered. If the government was really concerned with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals they would enforce the existing laws. @paul1967

@LEPeff That may be true, and perhaps there is inadequate enforcement, and the cure is as simple as the government improving its system of regulating guns. I still have an issue with military grade weapons in the hands of civilians, and I think we all should support a ban on owning these types of weapons.