These laws do nothing to counteract the problems they profess to solve. If someone has resolved themselves to go on a killing spree ending in suicide/suicide by cop, then the toughest law in the world will do nothing to deter them. I think things like this are part of an incremental approach to restricting guns in the culture at large, one step at a time. Kind of like the Lacey Peterson bill that would have recognized Lacey's unborn child as a second murder, in effect causing a legal precedence that unborn life, when terminated, is murder. It gave the fetus some rights as a person. You really have to be able to see the forest through the trees sometimes or you will risk falling down a very real slippery slope.

I think restricting a population's right to own guns allows the state/government too much control and takes away one of the prime weapons in creating a revolution if that government is not operating to the people's liking. This is an argument that will never end. As a gun owner and someone who shoots once a week, I can attest that recreational gun use is quite safe. Yes there are accidents occasionally, but most sports do have accidents that occasionally result in death. As far as handgun deaths relating to crime and homicide, I think that is largely a result of a larger cultural problem. These cultural issues are multifaceted and I don't have the solutions to the problems, but I know the problem is not the gun, but the operator and his worldview/environment. Countries like Canada and Switzerland do not seem to have the same scale of these sorts of crimes per capita.

I believe every American should have the right to have a gun after proper training (X hours of classes) and licensing (extensive background checks etc)

I agree with MattShizzle regarding strict regulations and severe punishment for law breakers.

Would all the regulations in the world stop violence? I don't even want to go downtown this summer:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/22/chicago.violence.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

I'd use a society a bit more North American-like than Japan for comparison to try to control for societal variation, given that the suicide rate in Japan is more than twice that of the US (link) (and egads, apparently being male in Lithuania is a good start towards offing yourself).  But yes, there is a rather obvious connection between the prevalence of guns and the prevalence of gun deaths.

I'd love to set a graph plotting prevalence of evangelical religion vs gun availability...from the countries that come to mind, there seems to be an almost direct relationship between the two.

If no guns are available to the average citizen, then they would just get them from the blackmarket.

We need to control the bullets guns purchased are used many times. Bullets on the other hand are only used once.

It seems strange to me that shotguns are permitted while other guns are not.  Have you ever seen what a single blast from a shotgun does to a person's head ?  The tissue destruction far exceeds what a mere bullet can do.  Click the link below if you aren't disturbed by gory images.

http://smoke.rotten.com/gunshot/kj51n.jpg

  It's like banning  the possession of firecrackers but allowing the possession of dynamite.

1 - I think that the right of the people to own weapons(muskets, firearms, laser beams, whatever) is integral to a free democracy, and that this should be obvious to everyone who has read the declaration of independence.  It is foolish to say "I trust the government to have all of the guns and I trust them to protect me 24/7 for ever and and ever."  Perhaps we should investigate the correlation between oppressive governments and the right of their citizens to own weapons.  What do you think the outcome would be.

2 - Trying to reduce the murder rate by reducing guns is a very short-sighted solution.  We should be trying to answer the question "why are people willing to kill each other so often(compared to Japan, etc)?"  Removing guns does not solve this problem.

3 - "Illegal guns = less gun violence"  Kinda of like illegal drugs means less drug use.

4 - The way to reduce violence is not to take away one tool but to take away the desire.  How much violence is a result of poverty, the drug war, gang life, etc?  These are the problems that need to be solved.  There is no "gun problem."  The banning of firearms is a silly, and quite frankly cowardly, attempt to solve the larger problem.

Okay, let's say your idea get implemented:

It is punishable by life in prison if you are caught selling an illegal weapon.

It is also punishable with life in prison if you murder someone. How's that working out so far?

As for you other point, you'll never get rid of all the guns in the U.S. Even if you did, they may still be able to be purchased in a foriegn country (Canda/Mexico..) then smuggled into the U.S

They smuggle kilos of cocaine in from Columbia. I think they can mange to smuggle in a couple 9 mils from Mexico/Canada. Seriously, Uzis, AK-47s you name it, the black market has it. Even in the U.S.

My point was that a government that "derives its powers from the consent of the governed" should not prohibit weapons amongst its citizens.

 Because the government may not be overly oppressive at this moment, is not a good reason to disarm the populace.

Heres an experiment for you all to think about: suppose we give everyone a gun.

It could be issued, by the government, after you complete a safety training course. This insures both that both you are familiar with safety and that they are all registered.

Now I'm assuming most people are good. Most people are not criminals. What psycho kid is gonna try and go in and pop his classmates knowing the second he even points the thing, it's done? he might get one or two, but this sure beats the dozens we typically see.

It seems like a crazy idea. I know. but think of situations where everyone does have a gun, like NRA conventions, sporting events, gun shows, firing ranges, etc. How many mass slaughters happen there?

I love starting shit storms.

Okay, what the hell is keeping guns going to do? It just increases the risk of rage kills.  Even if the government gets 'oppressive', other nations can very well step in and help.

To say that people who think it will get to the point that the citizens actually need guns to fight the government are paranoid would be the understatement  of the century.

I could very well turn that around to say the Cuban rebels overthrowing the government, The fall of Imperial Russia to Communism, FARC (Armed Revolutionary Forces of Columbia.) and other terrorist groups etc...

And, what if,in the thought experiment when the guy fires into a crowd, and people panic and start blasting each other, since they don't know who shot first?

I think that's a good example of a few guys with weapons taking control of most people who don't. But in the end, if the majority wants to be communist and wins, that's the will of the people. I prefer democracy, but understand some may not.

I'll give you that when people get together we can be a pretty irrational and panicky bunch, but I still think you have a pretty low estimation of people's intelligence to assume they'll all just kill each other in this situation. I think most people's reaction would be to get down and figure out what's going on first.

And last but certainly not least:

And I would say people who think we don't are naive. It's not all government, all the time, like some crazy conspiracy theory. But throughout history some of those in power have decided they want more power, and some have even gone so far as to do some really messed up things to get it.

What about people that wouldn't normally commit murder but kill someone in the spur of the moment in "road rage" or after getting mad at a loved one? Again, look how much better it is in Europe where gun ownership is severely limited. What other countries allow the insane level of gun ownership we do? Only lones that have no real control over the country - say in Africa and the less stable mideast countries. By the way, since the constitution actually mentions a militia, that means if you join the National Guard you can own a gun. What exactly do you think you are going to do to resist the government even with an assault rifle? If I was running the government/military in a scenario where it became repressive and people resisted I'd just send in artillery or tanks. If a town or whatever seriously resisted I'd use napalm or a tactical nuke - maybe a neutron bomb if I didn't want to damage the area. What would you do against that? Back in those days there weren't weapons more powerful than rifles and cannon. Now the real weapons of war civilians normally can't hope to get. Also, the revolution was supported by other nations (France , Spain and Holland.) The French even directly participated! Who's going to do that? The Chinese would rather have a government like that than the kind nutcases with guns would found. Same with the mideast. I really don't think any of them would want war with the US either.