Since I was pretty well disrespected in another thread where I was trying to have an empathetic moment after a tragic event, let's have the discussion here. I'll start by saying I am a gun owner, I believe in our right to own guns, and I am willing to fight tooth and nail for that right. I am also absolutely in favor of greater gun control legislation. I am not ignorant or blind to the plight that gun violence can bring to the population. I am also not stupid enough to believe that we shouldn't be allowed to purchase guns if we want them or need them. I am in favor of no automatic weapons. There's no need for that. Automatic weapons are difficult to control, not needed for hunting, and are overkill for personal protection. I am in favor of strong background checks on potential buyers perhaps including a psych evaluation, but that's open to debate. I am not in favor of banning guns. That's ridiculous. I am not in favor of reduced clip sizes, that really makes no sense. I am in favor of making it difficult to get a gun, but not a carriers permit. Right now in California I can take my handgun permit and pass it with ridiculous ease. It's a formality. However, if I want to carry the gun legally I have to jump through hoops to get a permit. Why am I trusted with a gun, but not trusted enough to carry it in case of emergency? That makes no sense. It should be the other way around. If I have to take a secondary psych eval to prove I'm capable of carrying the gun, then fine. Common argument: if guns are made more difficult to obtain, gun violence will decrease. - Maybe but probably not. Places like Chicago and LA aren't getting guns legally when they're being used to shoot people so those crimes won't be reduced. Those guns are being bought and sold illegally already. Tragedies like Sandyhook and Orlando may have been avoided, but it's hard to say. Those same people could have easily found ways to get guns if they had to and were in mental states so compromised that they'd likely have found ways to attack people with or without guns. Common argument: Guns are the problem. - Wrong. Mental health is a much greater factor in this which is why I'm okay with a psych eval on purchasing weapons. The common denominator in each of these cases is not guns (which is secondary) but the fact that these people were mentally unstable and everyone around them knew it. The man who attacked the club in Orlando was known for being irrational, violent, and intimidating to those near him. His wife said they scouted places to attack. That's someone who shouldn't pass a psych eval and thus would be denied legal weapons. Common argument: Get rid of guns. -The actions should not stop me from having a gun to protect myself. If there were more people who were mentally stable who were allowed to carry a weapon, maybe he doesn't get so many shots off that night.