The video misses the whole point. The video is a mere low level, emotional, brain dead appeal that spreads ignorance about the actual issues of gun control. The video spreads ignorance because most states already have laws on the books to take away guns from violent criminals, or the seriously mentally ill. Gun control already exists in most states.
I live in Pennsylvania. We already have a gun control laws. You will loose your right to own a gun
1-- If you have committed crimes using weapons.
2-- If you have been involuntarily committed to a psych unit.
* Also, if you have a concealed weapon, you must have a government permit to carry.
-- Law abiding citizens can own both hunting rifles and shot guns, and also law abiding citizens can own hand guns for self defense. There are even state militia people that are law abiding citizens that have guns. The point I am making in this paragraph, is that many states already have gun control laws. I am open to debating current laws, but emotional videos like the one above contribute nothing to the debate.
The real debate is two fold.
1-- Federal control: The 2nd amendment reads:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
* I am no legal expert, but PA law has been on the books for 1/2 century. I expect that if it were unconstitutional, it would have been challenged by now. So then, Pa already has gun control laws, and they are constitutional.
* I am against federal control. I know what federal control means. It would mean the overturning of the 2nd amendment. I prefer state control. The reason for this is that gun violence is very much related to locality. Big cities have the majority of gun violence and the gang bangers are at the center of it. On the other hand, a state like Wyoming has far less gun control and also has far less gun violence.
My point here is that gun violence is very local. State control makes sense. Federal control means only the overturning of the 2nd amendment and the possibility of the overturning of democracy.
2-- Police involvement: If the laws are already on the books, then why do gang bangers in the cities have guns? I suspect that there is a problem in the courts with judges not giving police warrants to enter the residences of the gang bangers and take the guns away. When police make arrests, they do go through a home and remove guns, but this seems insufficient to me. I think the police should be given more freedom to receive warrants to go after gang bangers and their weapons. A previous use of weapons in violent crime should be sufficient to get a warrant. Gang bangers conceal weapons all the time. Drug dealers conceal weapons all the time. The point here is that laws already on the books need enforcement better than what we currently have.
CONCLUSIONS
It seems to me that no one seems to offer specific recommendations to adjust state gun control laws. The only suggestion seems to be to ban all guns from a federal levels. Ignorant gun control advocates say that they want guns taken away from violent criminals, but that is already on the books in PA, so the gun control advocates are being dishonest. They say that they will allow hunting equipment. I do not believe that if there is gun control from the federal level, it will allow any guns at all.
I own guns and have taught my children how to use a gun. All my children have been deer hunting. I support the right of gun ownership under current Pennsylvania laws. I want the police to receive more liberal warrants and for more policing of current gun laws. I am open to some debate on changing the current state laws, but I grow tired of the radicle leftists going for broke and attempting to overturn the 2nd amendment at the federal level.
