Ultimately it's an issue where there is never going to be a solution that is widely accepted across the US. The original intention of the Founding Fathers was that if the King of England and his troops march into your home, you can defend yourself. This, back then, was a very realistic possibility. Washington was burned down by British troops in 1814.

Today, this is less likely (and there is a Queen). Still though, there are thousands of gun related deaths per year. This is not necessarily because of high gun-ownership levels (Switzerland has the highest rate with c.3M people and c.5M guns) but because of a lack of respect for what a gun is - a tool.

Schools should teach respect for weapons - as is the case with Army Cadet Forces in British private school. I do not support compulsory military service, but I think that those kids that have an interest in guns (which is not inherently unhealthy) should be able to get exposure to them in a controlled environment under the supervision of a good teacher. Then the lessons that go with the responsibility of owning a firearm can be embedded early, and hopefully spread to other peers.

I appreciate this may be a controversial view, and it is a very emotive issue for many. For me, though, hiding something away and making it secret and illusive will only heighten the appeal. Guns are not 'sexy' or 'cool' status symbols, they are either a) defencive or b) for hunting.
Source(s):
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/washingtonsack.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

Permalink | Report

The things I think we can agree on are the following.

1. Guns in the hands of criminals and/or those untrained in using them properly are dangerous.
2. Making something illegal does not stop people from doing it.
3. Far too many people in the US own guns who shouldn't (see point 1 above).

The things I think we'd have a hard time reaching consensus on but that may be good ideas are the following.

a. Nobody should be allowed to buy, own, or handle a gun until the authorities have verified that person is not dangerously insane, a convicted felon, a non-citizen, a member of a gang or other group promoting hatred against other residents/citizens, or someone against whom a restraining order has been issued.

b. Nobody should be allowed to buy, own, or handle a gun (except for the training mentioned below) until the authorities have verified that person has completed a training course in which s/he mastered the safe handling, stripping, cleaning, reassembly, and aimed fire of that type of gun.

c. People who pass requirements a and b above should be allowed to buy guns, but only after registering these guns with the authorities and receiving a permit which will be required before they can take possession of the gun(s). The types of guns allowed should depend on the use for which they are being procured. Purchasing e.g. a heavy machine gun or a rocket propelled grenade launcher does not seem to me a reasonable "right" for someone who claims they need it for self protection or hunting. If someone claims they need that level of protection, they may need to have the local SWAT team protecting them.

d. Gun owners should be required to lock away their gun(s) and ammunition separately when those are not under their immediate personal supervision.

e. Gun owners who do not follow requirement c above (e.g. the guns are not locked and are stolen during a burglary when the homeowner is out of the house) should be held accountable to some degree if their gun(s) are stolen and used to commit a crime. The degree of responsibility should be higher if they fail to report the theft of the gun(s).

f. While gun manufacturers should not be held liable for crimes committed with guns they fabricate and sell, they should avoid making guns that have little to justify them beyond a finish that does not hold fingerprints.

g. Anyone who sells guns without definitive proof that the person buying the gun has been authorized and licensed to do so should be held personally liable for any crimes committed with that gun, possibly as an accessory before the fact. Having a few shady dealers spend life in prison for selling guns to felons who proceed to use them in murders may make other dealers less eager to do the same.

I realize these steps which seem common-sense to me will seem unacceptable to many or possibly most people. The gun-control proponents will probably not agree with c, or f, which would make d, e, and g moot.

NRA members would probably not want to trust the authorities enough to allow a and b, as well as the registration and limits on guns type mentioned in c. Many of these people would also argue against d, e, and g.

Perhaps the fact that the complete set of requirements would not please either group is the best evidence that it would be a plausible compromise.
Permalink | Report

Think about the answers from the above individuals. @quesera points out that passing laws will not make law breakers obey them. But remember that the Brady Bill was designed to lessen the number of criminals and mentally ill persons who can obtain weapons. Not to eliminate them, but to lessen them. Now consider the concept of violence in the prisons. Quite true. But why is there violence from persons who were not violent before they went to prison? The need to defend themselves from other violent persons? Obviously. When people who are not themselves violent are placed in close proximity with persons who are, the violence has a tendency to spread. This is why persons who commit white collar crimes are often placed in prisons with low violent risks.
When high density populations consists of a percentage of violent people, violence will occur whether from guns or knives or bombs. So high density populations need more control than low density populations. Unfortunately, this concept is in direct opposition to our Constitution.
Now consider @chris54's observation that Switzerland has the highest gun ownership. So why do they have less of a problem that we do? The answer is twofold. First, they have a much less mobile society. This results in a individual knowing all most everyone else in their community. More important, it results in families knowing all other families. The result is a high degree of peer approval or peer disapproval, and this results in more stable communities and therefore more stable individuals. When people do not know their neighbors, there is no village.
The second reason that Switzerland has less of a problem is the reason that they own guns. They are not for sport, they are required as a result of the fact that almost everyone serves in the Armed Forces of Switzerland. Once again, we see the effect of peer review.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would do the following. First, I would change the Constitution of the United States so that high density areas would be allowed to control, and even ban guns. Second, low density areas would be allowed to leave the choice of owning guns in the hands of individuals without a history of criminality or poor mental health. In medium density areas, an individual would be allowed one single shot rifle and one shotgun. And in a final bout of whimsy, I would limit hand guns to women. Sort of even up the odds.
Permalink | Report

Gun Control should not and likely will not be widely accepted in this country in the near future. Gun Control is not only unnecessary, it is counter productive. Ban violent behavior, not self defense tools. When some idiot mows down a bunch of people with a car or blows up a bunch of people with a car bomb nobody talks about banning cars. I find it odd that when the same sort of thing happens using a gun there is a flurry of discussion about gun control.

In the Fort Hood shooting a bad guy used a couple of handguns in a very illegal manner. Assault, battery and murder are already illegal, no matter if you use a spork or a rocket launcher as your weapon of choice. The reason this murderer was able to get so many people was because he targeted a crowded area where he knew virtually nobody would be armed. The shooter was ultimately stopped when a woman rightly used a gun to shoot him. Had more people been armed at that location, chances are good that the shooter would have been stopped before he could harms as many people. Unfortunately, personnel at that location are forbidden to carry firearms unless they are using them during a training exercise so these victims were unable to defend themselves.

Bad guys will always exist. The only way to become safer is to learn how to defend yourself and your fellow citizen. The tools, skills and will to defend oneself should be cherished by every living being rather than discouraged. If your goal is to reduce crime, teach firearm skills to anyone willing to learn, bring back high school shooting teams and embrace programs like the NRA Eddie Eagle gun safety training for kids. Gun bans are an abomination because they make victims of law abiding citizens rather than address the fundamental issue of violent criminal behavior.

Even if it were possible to magically make all guns vanish, we would still have deadly massacres, such as stabbing sprees and driving rampages. Focus on the evil behavior and not the tool.
Permalink | Report

Get the guns away from the criminals on the street, and leave the hunters alone!!!
Permalink | Report

There have been some excellent points made here, most of which I agree with entirely.

I don't believe there should be gun laws, at all. Perhaps my perspective is skewed because I live in Alaska where guns are indeed used generally as intended. We don't have a real "gang banger" gun violence type issue. Do people get killed by guns in Alaska? Sure, it's a weapon and designed to kill people, however people get killed by bears as well. Should we ban the bears claws and teeth?

Alaska also never renewed their gun laws and currently you can own and carry just about anything, anywhere, anytime. With this change (the old laws failed to be renewed just a few years back) we have not seen an increase or decrease in gun related deaths.

To me this proves the laws do nothing for the cause they claim to be supporting and simply take the ability to defend oneself and family from the people.

So the necessary solution for gun control, is to eradicate it. Punish the crime not the instrument.

I do however support the idea of requiring gun safety courses when registering a weapon. This won't eliminate the problem entirely as there will always be people who don't register weapons, but it can't hurt.

I don't support the idea of requiring ammunition and guns to be locked up together or separately. If a bear comes in my back door and starts raiding my kitchen.. I'd like to have my gun on hand and ready because he has his claws and teach ready.

Article in source if you think I'm being far fetched. :P Also note Anchorage is Alaska's most populated city, I live in the country.
Source(s):
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/052008/sta_280981122.shtml

Permalink | Report

Gun should be banned,they are dangerous to anyone and no necessary,we may protect us by using electronic shock,sword,or many equipment.But the boss of weapon factory disagree to this,it influence their benefit.Maybe someone think gun is used to protect their freedom when government become a dictatorial one.It is lie from the boss of weapon factory.Every year 3 thousands of tens of american are killed by gun.
Permalink | Report

I think they just need to ban fully automatic guns. I think if you want to play with fully automatic guns you should join the military. Yes there will always be bad people, but a bad person with a fully automatic gun can do more harm and faster. I don't think this would affect the hunters, last time I checked hunters don't need an Uzi or AK47 to shoot a deer.
Permalink | Report