Both are bullshit excuses for violence. Allow me to point out the fact that the young males who carried out the horrific mass shootings at Columbine, Aurora, Sandy hook etc. all came from middle to upper middle class families, and weren't exactly hurting financially (the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was collecting something like $250k a year from her ex-husband for example).

People who don't have an income problem aren't necessarily less likely to go shoot up a mall or school than people who are considered "poor" in this country. In fact, go back and look at all the mass shootings in the US over the past 20 years or so, and tell me how many of those shooters were living in trailer parks or basically one step from being a bum on the street.

Gun control, or lack thereof, isn't the reason for all of this violence in America either. In fact, the cities and states with the strictest gun laws are the ones with the most shootings / murders every year. Right now all the pro-gun control advocates want to go back to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994-2004, as well as instate other laws regarding gun control. Let me point out that since the early 90s, the overall violent crime rate has dropped significantly in this country, and the number of homicides by gun each year has dropped to HALF of what it was approx 20 years ago. This despite the fact that the Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to expire (not that it did much good in preventing tragedies like Columbine and the D.C. sniper shootings among others while it was in place), and that overall gun sales are through the roof compared to 20 years ago.

What we need in this country are stricter requirements for gun ownership and better training. Basically we should treat guns at the very least the same way we treat cars... not everyone is allowed to get behind the wheel of a vehicle, nor do you simply have to pass a quick background check and wait a few weeks to acquire a driver's license (unless you're an illegal, but that's another topic entirely). You have to prove through several instructor sessions as well as a final test that you can properly and competently operate a motor vehicle. Same thing should be done with guns.

I'd love a world without guns, but since that won't happen anytime soon, I'd rather more good law-abiding citizens have guns so they can defend themselves from the law-ignoring citizens with guns.

the screening process could change, and it still wouldn't make a difference, as it wouldn't change the situations that incurs gun violence.

it's something no real restriction can prevent. gun violence has to do with the situation therein, causing the unwarranted action in the 1st place, and the mental stabilitly of the person in the situation using the gun.

screening can never detect when something goes wrong in ones mind. games don't make choices for you, guns don't make choices for you, you make choices for you, and in the end you'll need to hold yourself accountable for your actions.

there's no gun law needed. just a stable mind, and there's no determining whena stable mind is nolonger stable.

blame who or whatever you want, but it doesn't change the fact that, you the holder of the gun, had the chance and time to think about what you were going to do before doing it. didn't change your mind, and commited an unwarranted act of violence against society, and must pay for your actions.

if you're not mentaly unstable, then you got a needle to look forward to. it's premeditated murder.

Guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. Does anyone else think we should work on making people not want to kill instead of just making it harder? If I wanted to go on a killing spree (I don't) laws would only slow me down, not stop me.

Or even easier and cheaper: Legalise or decriminalise all drugs.

I'm all for a rational system determining which drugs should be legal or illegal on a consistent basis, and if you're willing to eliminate the welfare state and public education so that a person's failure only has a negative impact on themself I'm open to most drugs being legalized, but there are many drugs that have negative consequences to people unrelated to those taking the drugs.

While I agree with bolded, decrimilisation with those systems in place is still more beneficial than criminalisation, as there will be less people negatively impacting others. Within a decade of decriminilisation of all drugs in Portugal the number of hard drug addicts halved (largely because support/treatment is given to addicts), and there was a substantial drop in drug-related crimes.  http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy-decriminalization-works-2012-7

A lot of knife altercations though are lacerations, i.e. cuts.

True, you can't mow down a room full of people with knives.

That seems a little optomistic in my point of view that there would be 10-100 times as many border control or customs agents. Plus their is a risk of oversuturating the border with too many people doing the same job. Plus people will just turn to drugs that can be manufactured within the united states and the manufacturing levels will just increase. Switching all the resources in the drug war from demand to supply will mean drugs will cost more but people will be willing to pay more as the risk of being arrested has signifigantly decreased.

At best 75% of the resources in the drug war are focused on demand ( more likely 50%) meaning eliminating it would result in 4 times as many border control or custom agents and 4 times as many people looking for drug manufactures in the US. As you increase the resources involved in the fight against the supply side they don't result in a proportional increase in effectiveness.

Plus natural selection will just mean that the better drug dealers survive while the weaker one's die and they will keep doing it given the higher demand due to lower police pressure on buyers.

My advice is legalize, regulate and tax.

I agree but would want more testing to see who is mentally able to own a gun. Gun control is always taken to, "there going to take our guns". No thats not what any one is saying. The NRA fear tactics have worked and brain washed people into thinking this right off the bat. A big portion of the guns used in chicago street crime are bought in stores in the suburbs and most guns can't be traced. So I would have to say that a majority of guns are sold with out question. We need better regulation to not sell to the criminals. So this seems to not enter people's minds. We legally sell the guns to criminals. So why is this happening? We should be making it harder for them to get and effectively only allowing the good law-abiding citizens to own them.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-27/news/ct-met-gun-trace-study-20120827_1_suburban-gun-shops-gun-laws-gun-violence