Thoughts on Gun Control

So, seeing as no one has posted anything up on this issue, I wanted to get opinions on what you all think on this.

Gun Control ....

Do you agree with the idea or not?

Personally, I'm for it. I feel people are jumping to assumptions rather than taking the time to understand what it truly means.

We're not, by any means, suggesting guns be completely taken away.

What is trying to be done is a more thorough way to seek out individuals whom don't deserve to be able to handle firearms and prevent any further tragedies.

I really feel if we'd applied this earlier in the US, death tolls could have been prevented or at least decreased by quite an amount.

To me, it's a shame that too many people are trying to cling onto keeping a gun and not thinking on the safety of others lives ... children's especially.

I've tossed in my two cents so .... those whom want to, feel free to give your input as well.

Background checks need to be enforced as a standard. I found out they only enforce background checks on the federal level. I thought that was interesting.

Also - there's no real reason to have an automatic weapon. A hand gun or shot gun or rifle, I can understand. But something like an AK47? Nope.

Other than that, I think what they do in Sweden should be implemented. Background checks, if you go to a gun range you have to buy and use the bullets there. Also, every bullet for your gun at home has to be accounted for and it has to be locked in a secure location in your home.

The main issue is separating those who are mentally fit to own a gun and those who are not. I believe that's our (the US) main issue. Also too, limiting the types of guns that the public can own is crucial. Automatic weapons have no place in an average household. They are just too dangerous for many people to handle, not to mention if any unauthorized persons get a hold of them (i.e. children).

@Havoc: Yes, yes they do.

So much could have been done to make steps and prevent needless deaths if we already had this done.

I'm not saying by any means the process would be perfect or super fast.

But hell, I think it'd be a damn good start, in my opinion.

Interesting procedure. I didn't know Sweden had that. I have heard, though, that Australia practices gun control at most. So that's intriguing to learn.

@QuietSeductress: Side note, nice pic.

Anyways, more often than not, background checks would help with that.

Criminals or people who have had issues involving weapons often repeat the same offenses/crimes

Thus if we had background checks enforced, we should be able to do a better process of elimination ....

Or so I think, but nonetheless, I agree with you otherwise.

There's tons of examples I could rant on about involving people who clearly weren't sane enough to be handling a firearm ....

And yeah, I nearly got a hold of a few guns (hunting rifles I think) in the past xD

Then my dad learned and hid them.

This is all well and good, but you're all missing the fact that at least in the United States...guns are part of our culture, we became a nation through the right to bear arms and it will be completely and utterly impossible to enforce much more than background checks (Which should be done anyway). I should also point out that people who want automatic weapons for illegal purposes will get them regardless, people who actually have the tax stamps and the paperwork to get automatic firearms very, very rarely commit crimes. (arguably because of the money invested, I'd figure.)

There's also the fact that FFL dealers are sometimes the reason people can obtain guns illegally, which is as much of a problem as it is people not doing mandatory background checks. Situations involving negligent discharge are terrible, horrible things and limiting whatever gun isn't the issue. It's idiots owning them, which is also why nothing ever logical or reasonable will ever happen regarding gun control in the United States. Ammo prices SOARED because of Obama due to rumors of him just 'thinking' about doing something, and then the government was buying up ammo too. Ammo manufacturers kept the prices high and then gun prices quadrupled after Sandy Hook. Gun dealers could not keep their stores stocked fast enough. People get very, very afraid when a right that the United States has had since the beginning is even remotely threatened.

Knee-jerk reactions to tragedies are just going to make situations worse. I should also note that the firearms used in Sandy Hook were about as legal as legal could be, no matter what the news tried to tell people. Media sensationalizes tragedy and terrifies the uninformed, for what? To make us all retarded about anything logical?

He didn't have a .233 Assault Rifle, he had a semi-automatic .223 that looked like an M16. And far less 'scary' looking rifles use the same damn round. Sure, our country is fucked up in a lot of ways...but a lot of these people who start these shootings were out of their fucking minds in the first place. But you can't say that, because it starts an argumentative spiral that results in nothing ever being accomplished. I seriously do not care if someone is pro-gun, anti-gun, yay-gun. What I care about is people being smart and understanding hard logic.

But gun control that works in other places won't work here, simply because the gun control in other places is ingrained into their very culture. We're a gun culture, we probably always will be...we have generations of it built into us, taught by us...we can say we'll do it, sure.

But I doubt it'll ever work, and the US ever actually being reasonable about gun control is about as likely as my dick getting sucked by Kate Beckinsale.

But that's just my opinion, my apparently very long winded one.

I'm onboard with Broomhandle45 on this. The main majority of massacres and gun-related violence is committed with illegal or illegally obtained weapons and/or by unstable individuals. I will be speaking as a foreign observer on the US policy of gun-control, and I can say that some I like, some I dislike, but bearing in mind the conditions that are in place on the USA I can only say that I am in favour of maintaining a strong policy background check-ups and mental health investigations on people that want to buy a weapon or get a license for guns but that should not be the main focus in the struggle against gun related violence if we want it to be effective about it.

The rest of the problem as far as gun-violence is concerned, in my humble opinion, lies within the purview of the ATF and the FBI to make sure that the "black gun market" is crushed. That's the main problem. Oh, we can all dream and play with the theoretical ideas of perhaps the mentality pertaining firearms in the US needs to change, but then it needs to be specified as such or otherwise we'll stray away from the very specific topic of gun control LAWS, and enter a game of constructing a pacifist utopia.

I own an assortment of firearms. . .

M16 5.56/.223(semi-burst-auto) with M203 Grenade Launcher ( Saving up for the M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System ) The rifle is frankensteined from all the best AR parts I could get my hands on as I wanted a rifle customized for my own needs.
Saiga 12 ( semi-burst ) shotgun based off of the Kalashnikov weapon system.
Sig Sauer P220 Combat .45
Smith and Wesson .38

Now, the reason why I own the aforementioned firearms is simply due to the fact that I enjoy it as a hobby, I will admit that time spent in the Army allowed me to further train my pursuits into a small cache of choice firearms. Given the tricky situation regarding firearms, strict regulation only really effects and ultimately hurts those who are law abiding citizens. It's harder for me to find ammunition at my local gun stores, I'd rather support a local business that donates its time, effort and money to returning troops and on the off chance that someone doesn't return, the widow will receive some financial backing for funeral arrangements. Now I have to go a state or two over to pick up ammo from some random guy who'll just pocket it. I want my money to go into the community and support now, with all these gun/ammo scares I can't exactly control where my money goes, I want to support good honest business; not the sleazy motherfucker who might sell to gang bangers.

Admittedly, my situation isn't the norm for most people. I've actually worked in a gun store and I refused to sell firearms and ammo to people who smelled of marijuana and asked all the wrong questions, "How many people can this bullet kill?" and there are many idiots like that who ask that question. I've kicked them out after reporting them.

Ultimately it comes down to accountability, people need to police themselves for safety purposes, but not at the expense of freedoms that don't infringe upon lives and livelihoods of others.

The people who shoot up schools, businesses or any place that has a large public gathering aren't in their right minds, they're psychologically unbalanced, no one in their right mind would do that and infringe upon the rights of the many who use this hobby as a means to relax and even put food on their table is a travesty.

The should be regulated are people prone to violence, child molesters ( but they're not human, so they should be dragged out and set on fire, but thats for another debate ) and those who are prone to psychotic episodes.

The fringe violent element will always be there, now we as a people have to decide how to go about mitigating the fallout, removing the liberties of honest law abiding citizens is not the way to go about this.

QuietSeductress said:

The main issue is separating those who are mentally fit to own a gun and those who are not. I believe that's our (the US) main issue. Also too, limiting the types of guns that the public can own is crucial. Automatic weapons have no place in an average household. They are just too dangerous for many people to handle, not to mention if any unauthorized persons get a hold of them (i.e. children).

Click to expand...

I have known how to use a gun ever since I was a child. I don't use one for anything other that to make certain I know how to use it and for personal and home protection. I believe that it is a privilege but one that must always continually be proven one that each American citizen had right to keep.

Having said that, I have quoted QuietSeductress because I agree with her totally. No one other than the military should have access to certain weapons, or those militarily trained to use them. As well, the fact that no real effort has been made to keep the mentally disturbed or criminals from getting hold of guns is the real problem. That would, sorry to say, call for actually enforcing those laws that are so rarely enforced where convicted criminals and those who are both declared and obviously mentally disturbed are concerned. When those laws are finally enforced the way they should.. then people should start talking about gun control for those who have proven they deserve the rights and privileges concerning guns.

I can certainly see both sides of the issue really, but I think that the sad reality at this point is that there just isn't a way of actually being able to enforce any kind of proper level of gun control in the US anymore. Trying to enforce it at this point would largely be throwing money away. They had tried for years to get a full gun registry done in Canada, and all it did was cost a few billion dollars, and waste a lot of time.

Something should be done, but I'm afraid I lack the solution to the problem. A gun control law stops the honest folk, but it's not the honest ones we're worried about. People bent on commiting illegal actions tend to commit them with illegal weapons. I'd say that they should pour the monrey into actually trying to police illegally obtained weapons, but that would mean spending money that the government doesn't have to spend anyway.

I think a big part of this discussion is mental illness and the stigma it holds in this country and how hard it is to get people the help they need. For example, I, being manically depressed and living in a rural area, have very little available options if I wanted to start getting into therapy. Not only is it hour long drives to get anywhere around here but the therapy costs upwards from $80 per session. I don't have insurance, I don't make a lot of money to just throw around on pills and talking to someone for an hour a week. I've been considering suicide for the past month as an actual solution to my problem.

I'm not alone in this type of situation and there are more problems out there than debilitating self-hatred. But there are thousands of people at the end of their rope just as I am, floundering and not getting any help, let alone the help that they need. The way we deal with mental illness in this country seriously needs to change, because guns and bombs are just a way for more people to bathe in the gasoline of these types of people's personal demons.

big bwack scawy rifwes

bwaaaaaa

IMO, gun control is just the government's way of skipping out on funding things like education programs, attempting to slap a bandaid on a massive chest wound by blaming the average guy with the one-thousand dollar SGL-31 (A semi-automatic AK-74) for the gun crime instead of the petty criminal using a shit 9x19mm handgun and thinking that's the right way to do it.

Gun control, for the most part, punishes the law-abiding citizen and supports the criminal.

I can, for only 700-800 dollars acquire the tools and parts to produce a single reliable, fully-automatic 9mm sub-machine gun. Each sub-machine gun I produce after that, if I sell them on the black market, goes to around 300-400 per gun. Now you might comment on the usage of the 9x19mm Parabellum and its known armor issues. All I have to do is purchase over-pressure ammunition for the gun and I now have the ability to kill armored SWAT officers without the need of rifle rounds. I can also produce my own ammunition and make armor-piercing, overpressure rounds based off what the Russians make and then I can now kill military members in the new OITVs which are rated against 7.62x51mm NATO rounds.

I can go the route of many rebel groups like the Chechens and produce carbines and rifles chambered in 7.62x39mm or 5.45x39mm without much modification to the 9mm SMG itself, then making it a little under par with the M4A1 carbine.

The cost of a full-automatic M16-alike? Around 15k before the panic. They are most likely in the 20k area now. You won't find a fully-automatic firearm for under 10k from a retail establishment mind you. And before the cost of the rifle itself, you have to factor in the cost of getting the proper license to own said firearm which can be over a grand itself. You also have to pay a flat tax of 200 dollars when ordering the rifle and it can take up to a year of background checks (Which have been done since the 1980s) and general slowness of the government before you even get approved to own said automatic rifle.

These new 'regulations' are something that has been going on for the past 20 years. Its like making murder illegal again. Its when you ban the use of 30-round magazines, collapsible and folding stocks, and anything that resembles a military firearm is when you are over reacting.

---

Also, whats this save the children shit? You want to save our children? Tell your congressman to allocate money towards community clean up projects, more education funding, healthcare reform, creating more jobs and infrastructure repairing as those are the main reasons gun crime is so bad in the United States. Nations like Switzerland, which have, 45.7 guns per 100 residents, have almost no gun-related crime because the population has good education, good infrastructure, plenty of jobs and also educates their citizens on firearm safety and proper usage. Hell countries like Sweden, Norway and France have around 30 guns per 100 people and how many mass shootings and gun crime do you see from them? Its everything not related to firearm ownership that effects gun crime.

If you want to save the children, ban cars, buses video games, fun, tea time, beds, and anything that might hurt them.

@San-Silvacian: With all due respect, a lot of video games don't affect children in the wrong way. There have been a select few I've heard of, yes. But as someone who grew up around consoles, video games, and things of the like I can say with confidence that a lot of media sources aren't what make the future generations which have turned out bad to be that way.

Often, it really is being introduced into bad surroundings in environments, whether to them directly or someone they love, maybe a sibling or other parent.

Also ... pain's inevitable in this world. Even if we did try to take some of the factors away, there's no guarantee they won't run into or learn of another one. I know did a few times in my life.

Really though? Beds? Isn't that plus some of the other - all actually - items you listed going just a tad overboard?

The easiest way to save your own, at least partly, is raise them as best as you can.

Can it backfire? Well yes though anything can. Still, can doesn't mean it will either.

Lady Yuna, I'm pretty sure that last line in San's post was hyperbole and it was even phrased that way. The point, since you seemed to totally miss it, is that if we're going to focus on things that hurt people and not the reasons behind cultural strife and violence, then we might as well ban everything that may be even the least bit threatening. And San illustrated this with exaggerated and tame examples.

Hahvoc The Decepticon said:

Background checks need to be enforced as a standard. I found out they only enforce background checks on the federal level. I thought that was interesting.

Also - there's no real reason to have an automatic weapon. A hand gun or shot gun or rifle, I can understand. But something like an AK47? Nope.

Other than that, I think what they do in Sweden should be implemented. Background checks, if you go to a gun range you have to buy and use the bullets there. Also, every bullet for your gun at home has to be accounted for and it has to be locked in a secure location in your home.

Click to expand...

What Hahvy said, in a nutshell. There's so many factors in this issue that it can make gun regulation really hard to maintain. I think it does need to be done, regardless.

But along side background checks there's the issue of mental health, with depression, aggression, ability to think rationally, logically, etc. Mental health issues can arise later on in life and at any time and a legal gun owner who was once perfectly happy and healthy could become a threat. Not to mention, the most common way of acquiring a gun for people in gun crimes is by borrowing it from a friend or family member (30%).

Might sound douche-y but if people really want to be able to keep their guns, then I think when it comes to gun crimes, if the murderer did acquire their gun from someone else who is the proper owner of the gun, that person should be considered accountable and charged as well. I'm not saying to the degree of the murderer, but they either 1) Did not safely or properly secure their gun or, 2) Gave their gun (which should only be used by them) to someone else to use. And if they are so aware of the risks that come with owning and using a gun, they should never just hand over a gun or make it easily accessible to anyone. And they should assume responsibility if they do.

But seriously, there is an issue with guns getting in the wrong hands and being used way too easily. In the 2009 census image I linked there, firearms are by far the most commonly used weapons in homicide. That doesn't include suicides, accidents, justified (defense?), and negligence.

My cousin was a cop and he was shot and killed because of a couple who hadn't paid their water bill in months. Someone was sent out to turn off their water and the wife kept chasing them off their property every time they tried, so they called the police and my cousin showed up. When he showed up and got out of the car the husband came out and shot him. I know water is a necessity, but I don't think it is worth killing a man over, especially in these times. If they were having issues paying their bills they probably could have sorted something out. They lacked the mental capacity to do so, but apparently they were stable enough to own a gun.

Again, this is not against hobbyists and all gun owners. But you can't deny guns do often get into the hands of people who should never have one.

It all comes down to accountability, people have to police themselves and hold those who provide firearms to the public to a higher standard. As for myself, my firearms are stored and secured in a safe. Granted, I will admit that if someone is dedicated enough, has enough time and skill, they'll be able to get through these deterrents to get what resides inside.

We can all agree that this is "tricky business" that steps on a lot of toes and can give rub people the wrong way without a moments hesitation. To say otherwise would be a blatant lie to ourselves and those who choose to participate in this particular debate.

Living in CA, being a gun owner and having military experience. I get to be on the "front lines" of firearm regulation. It's not exactly an enjoyable experience watching people step and stomp on what I consider to be a calming hobby just because it goes against their sensibilities, pushing in "feel good" bullshit laws that make it harder for me and mine to enjoy ourselves. Now given the aforementioned, people can surmise where I sit. Ultimately it comes down to accountability, I don't want firearms in the hands of people who wish to use them to cause harm, but that fringe will always find a way to place their hands upon such. They're called criminals for a reason.

I just don't like the fact that each passed law in California turns me into a criminal, when I followed the given laws and regulations to the letter, jumping through hoops, garnering signatures and obeying the laws set down by society to get the things I wanted at the time. Everything that I own, outside of the revolver will soon be considered illegal; how is that fair?

I have gone to war, obeyed the laws set down by this nation, paid my bills and taxes with little to no bitching, saved up to ensure that I'd get by on a rainy day. At worst I've gone double the speed limit on my motorcycle, gotten into bar brawls over a woman and jay-walked with an open container of alcohol. Yet, by owning the firearms that I legally purchased and registered, I will soon become a criminal.

I also think that we should perform background checks before people buy guns. If you have laws the restrict guns to much, you end up having the state of IL, were I live, were no one can defend themselves. Illinois also has the highest crime rate. Coincidence? I think not. Most people who shoot people have obtained a weapon illegally. Sure, you get a wacko here and there who has a gun legally and kills people with it, but that's rare. For those who think that all guns are evil, you are WRONG. It's not guns that kill people. People kill people. Also, I think it is stupid that the crime becomes completely different weather or not a gun was involve. Someone can kill in self defense with a sword or bow all they want, but as soon as a gun is involve, people think that's excessive force, which may be true, but I still think a gun should be treated the same as any other weapon. You don't see people doing a background check if they are going to buy a sword, do you? Actually, do they? I'm guessing, but I don't think so.

But this is just MY opinion, so don't hate me for it.

No, they don't do a background check for a sword. But then, I can't kill you from 40 yards with a sword, can I? It also takes a lot more effort to actually make a fatal blow with a sword than it does to just pull a trigger.

Now, despite that statement, I'm not actually disagreeing with what you've said by and large. Overdoing the amount of control on guns can cause more problems than it fixes really. That being said, I cannot think of a single damned reason why a private citizen needs to own anything more than a hunting rifle, shotgun, or maybe a handgun for defensive purposes.

I mean seriously, if you're saying to defend your home, you need a full auto weapon with 30+ rounds in the mag? Are you holding off an invading gang? Or a military squad? There is no logical reason to need something like that.

I respect that some of the people who own such weapon are ex-military, and have training in such weapons. And I still don't think they need something like that in their home any longer. And I've grown up with family members in the military, and I still don't think that retired or just no longer active members have any more right to such a weapon than any other private citizen.

I'm seeing a lot of 'owning guns for defensive purposes and hunting' and I think there's one point that's kind of missing here. There's two other sides to this whole thing, and that's recreational and competitive shooting.

In the US at least. Recreational is what it is, people like owning guns and people like shooting them. People who have the ability to purchase fully automatic weapons have to first find a Class III dealer, then pay the +200 bucks for the tax stamp, and then they can only choose weapons that are pre-1986 unless you're an FFL dealer yourself or a cop. And that's not a cheap task either, because the NFA closed the registry in '86, the price for the weapons that are legal are pretty damn high. Like in the ten thousand range.

So wondering how people can get ahold of automatic weapons is honestly the minority issue here, they have the money and that's about it. Legal owners of automatic weapons are BARELY ever causing the crimes in the first place. I promise you that people can just...you know, like firearms. My cousin does that, he'll buy guns for the fun of it. Nothing more, nothing less. He likes shooting them, he likes reloading them. It's not a matter of 'why' when you're getting into things like that, it's just a matter of 'why not? It's fun'.

I really think this sort of mindset is what kills most discussions. (Most HONEST discusions) about gun control, because people look at the guys with the tricked out gear and just wonder 'why would they like that? They must be messed in the head.' To gun owners, those people are basically spitting on their hobby.

Which for a lot of people, that's all it is. A hobby, but it's a hobby that has a very direct risk...so people take it too seriously and nothing really gets accomplished other than defensiveness and arguing. It's kinda a really shitty comparison, but would you like it if someone smacked your favored hobby out of your hands and told you 'No, this is dangerous! People get hurt! I saw it on the news! These are dangerous!' without actually trying to understand?

But, but...swords are cooler!

They're probably cheaper, at least!

Probably. Unless, ya know, it was handled by Charlemagne.

I'm really just preparing for the Zombie/Cthulhu/Illuminati/Apocalypse.

:3

Alvis Alendran said:

I can certainly see both sides of the issue really, but I think that the sad reality at this point is that there just isn't a way of actually being able to enforce any kind of proper level of gun control in the US anymore. Trying to enforce it at this point would largely be throwing money away. They had tried for years to get a full gun registry done in Canada, and all it did was cost a few billion dollars, and waste a lot of time.

Something should be done, but I'm afraid I lack the solution to the problem. A gun control law stops the honest folk, but it's not the honest ones we're worried about. People bent on commiting illegal actions tend to commit them with illegal weapons. I'd say that they should pour the monrey into actually trying to police illegally obtained weapons, but that would mean spending money that the government doesn't have to spend anyway.

Click to expand...

This fits my opinion almost perfectly. I am not an American myself, instead being a citizen of the United Kingdom, but because of the US's extensive gun culture I don't think banning guns/reducing gun ownership on a large scale is not a possibility. It'll likely just be a waste of money and resources as much as I would love such a thing to happen. I do agree with refining the process of owning a gun through, making it more difficult to own one, and making it illegal to own any weapons deemed too dangerous. Explosives and fully automatic firearms for example are not going to be needed for personal defense and I'm sure if you own them for various past times that you can substitute it with something less dangerous.

I think the best option at this point would be education, along with trying to curb the current gun culture of the US. I'm certainly not an expert on these things so I'll have to leave it up to others to find a specific solution, but it seems like an adequate solution to almost any problem, not just firearms.

Although I know it's been mentioned by San-Silvacian that many countries in Northern Europe have a thriving gun culture and yet they have low gun-related crime rates, thanking education for this. It's worth noting that many of these countries use military conscription for at least a few years once the person leaves schooling. While that is indeed an effective way to teach greater control of firearms I don't think it would ever be anything that would be implemented in the United States. Another method of educating the populace would be necessary.

Speaking of conscription, Sweden has recently dropped its conscription policies. I think it might be worth keeping an eye on how their gun crime rates fluctuate over the next decade or so to see if it has any effect.

As I mentioned I am British. I'm just glad we don't have such a gun culture here and that gun ownership is not a problem. I've never touched a real gun (unless you count a rifle used in laser tag) and I don't know of anyone who owns one. The closest I've ever come is at a war museum. In an ideal world there would be no guns at all, but considering the way human beings work it's not something we can sensibly work towards at this point.

I'll stop using the words "gun culture" now. I must've used it a dozen times in this one post.

This post MAY be slightly controversial.

I speak as someone who grew up fairly conservative and reactionary. I like guns and I enjoy shooting. I appreciate both the technical genius and the aesthetic of firearms. I am, in some ways, a gun nut. As a Canadian, I grew up in a country with fairly comprehensive (if a little haphazard) gun control, and it has grown more restrictive rather than less.

Many 'gun control' laws are based around the aesthetics of a firearm rather than its capability. This is really quite silly but I understand it. Some firearms simply "look scary" and that leads to reactionary action by politicians who simply want to give the appearance of doing something. Reading over Canada's gun control laws gives dozens of examples of this sort of thing, and leads to some rather silly inclusions and exclusions.

Given the money, I would gladly collect firearms. Given the opportunity I could quite happily shoot every day. I don't hunt anymore but I have, and I'm glad that I have the skills however rusty they are. Treated with respect and used by intelligent people with proper safety training, firearms are no more dangerous than cars.

BUT

I am fervently in favour of gun control, and even in restrictions on the kinds of firearms that are available for purchase. Why? Because Humans are frelling stupid. Because letting every bonehead, redneck, bigot, lunatic, whacko and wingnut who wants to tool up like Rambo on a bad day buy a gun is the worst kind of government sponsored negligent homicide.

I would love for people to be smart enough, good enough and trustworty enough to be allowed to own whatever weapons they wish... but fifty percent of the population is below average and most people I've met I wouldn't trust with anything more dangerous than a squirtgun. The last time I looked at the statistics, firearms were responsible for something like 900,000 deaths in the United States in the last thirty years. That's pretty telling. That suggests that you are several thousand times more likely to be killed in a firearms related crime or accident than you are in a terrorist bombing, for instance.

Would I like to turn back the clock to the days when I could own just about anything legally? Absolutely I would. But I'm mature enough now to know that I don't need fully automatic weapons, high capacity magazines or even a handgun. Of course, I'm a Canadian. If I lived in the States I might feel a little less secure, speccy, corduroy wearing liberal progressive that I am. Even then, I have no use for an AR-15 or a high capacity handgun. I have no use, for that matter, for most firearms. A shotgun or a lever action rifle for hunting and the coming zombiepocalypse would more than suit my needs. I am hardly unique in this. No one, no matter how dangerous their neighborhood, has any need for a rapid fire repeating military weapon unless they are busily waging a guerrilla war.

Moreover no gun is much use against real military weapons. Not anymore. The second amendment is obsolete, when it comes to private gun ownership. To my mind it was overtaken by the Militia Act of 1903 that established the National Guard more or less as it exists today. In a time of drones, jets, tanks and body armour simple firearms have been surpassed by military weapons. Unless you suggest that civilians should be allowed to own artillery, rocket launchers, mortars and armored vehicles, there is no way that any 'militia' could actually stand up to an organized military with even WWII era weaponry, much less a truly modern arsenal.

But as posters above have mentioned, the gun is built right into American culture at a very deep level. Part of just how brutally violent and (when viewed closely, repellent) American history really is. I speak as an outsider but the fetishization of the gun and of the right to own guns has grown more and more ridiculous over the course of my life. The NRA have grown more and more extreme and (if you read their screeds carefully) more and more racist as time has passed. What was once an organization of sportsmen and hunters has turned into a lunatic fringe political lobbying group funded in large part by the gun manufacturers.

So what to do? It's far too late to try to reclaim the thousands of semi-automatic rifles, pistols, high capacity magazines and other not-quite-paramilitary weapons that are already in private hands. But it's just simple logic to try and reduce the number of dangerous weapons in unreliable hands by instituting such things as background checks and closing some of the more egregious loopholes. Require mandatory background checks. Remove the right for felons to own a gun. Make the criminals work a little harder to get one than just going to a gun show in the next state and flashing some phony I.D.

The very best (and most entertaining, from a schadenfreude point of view) way to run a gun registry would be to make the corporations that manufacture the weapons ultimately responsible for tracking the sale of every firearm they sell, down to the . It's terribly impractical and just suggesting it I can hear the screams from the gun merchants, but it would be fun to watch them squirm, wouldn't it? A better thought is requiring firearms owners to buy insurance policies for their guns, to help cover the costs of accident and injury.

Or at least make people register. Tax the guns and the ammunition. Create a few thousand new federal jobs, dozens or even hundreds in every state, by building a firearms registry and requiring owners to register their guns. Require all newly manufactured guns to be registered from the manufacturer to the point of sale. Require background checks for every license, and more stringent checks for concealed carry licenses. Close the loopholes around personal transfer and sales at gun shows. There are dozens of things that could be done to make life safer for everyone who has to live around guns. The statistics from other countries are utterly clear: gun control WORKS. It makes people safer. It reduces the number of deaths from firearms.

It's not rocket science. It's just basic statistics, some logic and a little compassion. Really people, it's not that complicated.

So why do they fight it?

I'm Australian, back in 1996 we had a gun massacre in which 35 people were killed, the gun man used a military style rifle that was legally bought, due to this incident the Government increased gun laws and many types were made illegal.

The catchphrase of shooters groups down here is "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" I agree with that as criminals obviously do not care for the law and will acquire weapons anyway. Although I think there is no reason for anyone to own military weapons designed to kill masses of people quickly, I do think we all have a right to protect ourselves and guns are a very good equalizer in that respect. I also know America is a lot more violent than Australia (although we are catching up) and I think if I lived there I would own a firearm as well.

On a related but perhaps slightly different topic I would think that the real question politicians etc should be asking is "What makes someone snap and shoot so many people?" because if there is something going on that makes people want to kill than banning guns won't stop them from doing that, they'll just find another means to carry out what they want to do.

I also have my suspicions about your Govt. especially Obummer's regime and I do think it odd that under his watch gun massacres have increased. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/mass-shootings-us_n_3935978.html