You could add a tax to the purchade of guns (and ammo) and add an annual registration fee - all to encourage lower rates of gun ownership and to justify taking guns from those who are now holding them illegally.

This solution may be useful in america where the second admendment needs to be altered, but a slow change in culture could be effected over time.

And maybe positive rewards for responcible gun storage, so entry into a draw to win guns! (the ones confiscated from those who refuse to pay the registration fees...)

as shown by the patriot act and NDAA, American gun owners don't care about their rights so long as they can keep their guns

@ Putin

It's only a left-right issue in the US. I doubt you'd find a Conservative in the whole of the UK who'd support US style gun laws here

What bothers me most about this debate is that NO ONE is willing to even define what they want to ban.

"Ban assault rifles/weapons! They only belong on the battlefield!" -- Okay, fully-automatic assault rifles have been severely restricted by federal law since the National Firearms Act of *1934*. To my knowledge, no legal, federally-authorized fully automatic weapon has been used in a high-profile mass shooting.

Semi-automatic rifles, while they may look identical to their full auto cousins, are required by the BATF to be difficult to modify to full auto. They fire one round per trigger pull and have been around since the turn of the 19th/20th century. Their practical rates of fire are not much higher than more primitive firearms such as revolvers and lever/pump action rifles/shotguns. Semi-automatic weapons also have very legitimate self-defense/hunting uses as well as target shooting.

"Ban high-capacity magazines!" -- Who decides what a high-capacity magazine is? 100 rounds? 50? 30? 15? Ridiculous and way outside of the federal government's jurisdiction. The only thing you are doing with a hi-cap ban is making target shooters reload more often.

"You don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer!" -- I agree, but you might want 30 rounds to target shoot or defend your house.
_____________

The time has come for increased legislation on firearms, but you Europeans need to recognize just how strong of a gun culture we have over here. Guns literally built America.

Banning weapons by type or just because they look intimidating is idiotic. Just because I have an M1A rifle (semi-auto), doesn't mean it has the same capability of a military M14 (selective fire).

The smart thing to do is to A) tighten restrictions on firearms purchase, particularly for semi-automatic rifles and B) pass some sort of "Safe Firearms Storage" Act, which would require gun owners to either carry their weapons, keep them in a locked and secured container or room, or keep them within 3 seconds' reach (i.e. under the bed). These crazies aren't buying these weapons; they are stealing them from friends and loved ones.

If only the mother had kept them under the bed!

I'm not saying you do. But that doesn't negate the fact that your solution to every problem is to give up and tell everybody it's not worth the effort. I guess that's the difference between European Do-Nothing Toryism and American revolutionary conservatism.

"These crazies aren't buying these weapons; they are stealing them from friends and loved ones."

They're not stealing. They're being given them by "friends & loved ones". There's some kind of pathological issue there if people *need* to fire these weapons *for fun*.

Anyway Gunfighter, I have a solution to your problem. Ban all of them.

Oh, c'mon Putin. I specifically said I thought tightening up US gun laws a bit would be worth while. Limiting who can buy them seems obvious. Restricting assault rifles to people with spotless police or military backgrounds, and all guns to people who have no criminal records or histories of violence/mental illness. Also banning all guns from houses which these ineligible people occupy.

It will not spot all massacres, but it should stop a few. European styles laws wouldn't work though.

There is a myth that we Americans have a gun culture. What we have is a vocal well funded minority who holds our politics hostage because the majority is too gutless to stand up to them or thinks its support is broader than it really is. But the CT shooting resulted in a visceral reaction from the silent majority and I believe the NRA's days of controlling the government are numbered.

And we have a court system that panders to the vocal minority.

I like the analogy that we should arm school volunteers because we have armed guards around presidents and heads of state. No one ever tried to kill a head of state now did they?

@ Putin33

"They're not stealing. They're being given them by "friends & loved ones"."

The firearm owner needs be legally liable for the security of their weapon(s) and its ammunition. That's something we can all agree on.

"There's some kind of pathological issue there if people *need* to fire these weapons *for fun*."

One of my favorite activities is going to the range and letting loose with my (federally licensed) custom Fulton Armory M39 EMR on full auto. I have no mental or emotional health issues. Sane people like guns too, Putin.

"Anyway Gunfighter, I have a solution to your problem. Ban all of them."

No thanks. I want something between the federal government and the rest of my rights.

"There is a myth that we Americans have a gun culture. What we have is a vocal well funded minority who holds our politics hostage because the majority is too gutless to stand up to them or thinks its support is broader than it really is. But the CT shooting resulted in a visceral reaction from the silent majority and I believe the NRA's days of controlling the government are numbered."

Until the Sandy Hook shooting, the majority of Americans did not favor a tightening of firearms laws. I believe that the majority of Americans that now support tighter restrictions are misinformed and uneducated about weapons and applicable laws, this Forum being a case in point.

"And we have a court system that panders to the vocal minority."

If this was any other issue than you would praise the court system for protecting the rights of the minority. You could at least pretend to not be a hypocrite.

@ Octavious

"Restricting assault rifles"

Define/clarify the term "assault rifle" so that I can continue the debate. If you are referring to fully automatic or selective fire rifles (fires continuously until the trigger is released or ammunition is exhausted), they have not been manufactured for civilian use since the 80s, and their sale and transfer requires a spotless background and money to burn. They have been severely restricted since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

If you are referring to semi-automatic rifles (1 round fired per pull of the trigger until ammunition is exhausted), these have never been fully illegal. Semi-automatic rifles have legitimate self defense and hunting uses. Semi-automatic civilian-legal rifles may look very similar to their selective-fire military counterparts, but they are required to be difficult to modify to full auto by the BATF, and modifying them to full auto requires expensive and specialized equipment and an intricate knowledge of firearms.

@ Gunfighter

Fully autos should have no place outside of a barracks unless carried by a member of the armed forces. End of. Essentially take what i said to mean semi-automatics. As much as I can understand semis being useful for hunting I would say the right to carry one should be a right that must be earned through service. Other hunters can get by with the alternatives.

Most of my personal experience comes from using the SA80 and I very rarely had any use for the fully automatic option. I can't for the life of me see what use such a thing would be to civilians.

"Until the Sandy Hook shooting, the majority of Americans did not favor a tightening of firearms laws. I believe that the majority of Americans that now support tighter restrictions are misinformed and uneducated about weapons and applicable laws, this Forum being a case in point."

True or false: People in Arizona can go into a Wal-Mart carrying an M-16.

That's not true, which is why the poll right after Aurora shows a majority believing controlling firearms is more important than the deluded "right" to bear arms. Gun fetishizers like you have an inflated view of how mainstream their insane views are.

"One of my favorite activities is going to the range and letting loose with my (federally licensed) custom Fulton Armory M39 EMR on full auto. I have no mental or emotional health issues. Sane people like guns too, Putin.
"

And we're supposed to take your word for it that you can keep your temper and aren't going to solve disputes with your gun arsenal. I find nothing sane about gun fetishism. Your hobbies shouldn't come at the expense of everybody else's security.

"No thanks. I want something between the federal government and the rest of my rights.
"

Right, which is why the government is so afraid of implementing the NDAA and indefinite detainment of Americans, or spying on Americans, because you have a gun hobby.

@ Octavious

Okay, so you oppose civilian possession of semi-automatic rifles, unless that possession is in connection with past military or police service. Personally, I think that semi-autos only have legitimate use in a few forms of hunting (for most animals, if you need more than one shot than you are a shitty hunter or you are using the wrong caliber) But there is the self-defense and recreation angle. An M1 Garand (still a very popular rifle) has not much more killing power than a lever-action Marlin 1895 lever-action rifle in .45/70 Govt. With practice, I could shoot just as fast with a lever-action or a bolt-action as with a semi-automatic. Semi-automatics are handier and have more real-world practicality, but banning them won't prevent some nut from going on a spree with a lever-action rifle.

@ Putin33

"True or false: People in Arizona can go into a Wal-Mart carrying an M-16."

False, unless that person has a federally-licensed transferable pre-1986 M16 with tax stamp and has passed extensive background checks. People in Arizona are lucky. They can go just about anywhere carrying just about anything.

The reality is that it is legal to openly carry long guns in nearly every state, but no one does because people stare at guns for some reason or another. I don't know what point you were trying to make there.

"Gun fetishizers like you have an inflated view of how mainstream their insane views are."

Once again, you provide no basis for your charge that gun owners are "insane".

"And we're supposed to take your word for it that you can keep your temper and aren't going to solve disputes with your gun arsenal."

The federal government, my state government, and local government all trust me to have that M39. I had to jump through a shit ton of expensive hoops to get it.

"Your hobbies shouldn't come at the expense of everybody else's security."

My hobbies come at the benefit of everyone else's security. I can personally guarantee that the crime rate in my immediate area is zero at all times.

"Right, which is why the government is so afraid of implementing the NDAA and indefinite detainment of Americans, or spying on Americans, because you have a gun hobby."

If the federal government (and the media) wasn't afraid of gun owners, than why in the fuck do they continue to demonize gun owners and encroach on our rights. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was bad enough. They're lucky THAT gross breach of the Second Amendment didn't cause a revolution right then and there.

In any rational debate involving the NRA it will always be tricky getting an objective balanced view from someone who goes to a games forum using a name like Gunfighter. In general the name would cause certain doubts in rational debate,
How many people resolve petty disputes with neighbours by actually shooting them? Not just deaths but also gunshot wounds.

@ Gunfighter

No amount of laws against guns will completely halt mass murders. What we can do, however, is prevent some of them. We make it impossible for people with poor histories to own their own legal weapons. We stop others from keeping such weapons in the same house as these people.

Will this prevent the determined evil nutter finding weapons anyway? No. But most gunmen aren't totally evil. They are people who have snapped and in the heat of the moment have crossed the point of no return and lost their grasp of reality. Make finding a gun difficult in that moment and you give them time to cool off, and hopefully fewer points get crossed

@ NigeeBaby

You *do* know that my username is a video game reference, right? Don't read into it.

"How many people resolve petty disputes with neighbours by actually shooting them?"

No one. Stop saying things like this.

@ Octavious

"We make it impossible for people with poor histories to own their own legal weapons. We stop others from keeping such weapons in the same house as these people."

I'm not opposed to rules like these. I do, however, have a big problem with banning weapons by type or just because they look scary.

"Will this prevent the determined evil nutter finding weapons anyway? No. But most gunmen aren't totally evil. They are people who have snapped and in the heat of the moment have crossed the point of no return and lost their grasp of reality. Make finding a gun difficult in that moment and you give them time to cool off, and hopefully fewer points get crossed"

I disagree with this. Under that logic, a normal everyday CCW would shoot up a public place whenever his temper boils over, which just isn't true. Most of these shootings are premeditated months or years in advance.

@gunfighter. I do respect your views and as an Englishman don't want to be seen to be imposing solutions. But i am interested in some of your arguements. You said earlier that crime rates are low in your area and you have contributed to these low rates. You may be right, but it's not really relevant. My grandfather smoked all his life and DIDNT die of cancer, this doesn't mean we should dismiss the evidence that smoking kills. If you compare gun related deaths I the US with gun related deaths in countries like the UK with stricter gun control, the stats are clear.

You also seem to feel that you're right to a hobby carry equal weight to other people's right to live in safer districts. I don't think you are seeing others views clearly. Suppose a guy who enjoys dynamiting fish wants to take it onto a plane? How would you react if you found yourself sitting next to him? Answer honestly.

I suggest we should put a teacher in every gun store.

-Jef Johnson

@ Maniac

Whilst the UK gun situation is obviously (to British eyes) far better than the US situation, you cannot simply say that if the US adopted a European approach things would improve. Apply UK gun laws in the US and you would find yourself in a situation where the bad guys are incredibly well armed with an entrenched gun culture while the decent citizens will be far less able to defend themselves.

Whilst this will, given time, lead to a society with closer to European levels of gun crime you will likely have a ghastly transition period with crime at record highs.

That's assuming you could ever get the American people to agree to such a plan, and stick with it through the inevitable short term consequences.

@Gunfighter06:
Well, the son of the president of the NRA did shoot at someone he was upset with in a road rage incident. Petty dispute addressed with gun shots. And, shouldn't the NRA president have taught his own son better gun safety/gun use? Maybe if the other driver had a gun, we could have had a cool shootout...which one would have been the "good guy" that is the answer to the "bad guy"?

@ Maniac

"You said earlier that crime rates are low in your area and you have contributed to these low rates."

You misunderstand. I was saying that the crime rate in my immediate area at any given time is zero. I was referring to the immediate physical space around my person at any given time (I carry at all times), not my city or state.

"You also seem to feel that you're right to a hobby carry equal weight to other people's right to live in safer districts."

It's more than just a right to a hobby. It's a constitutionally guaranteed right. The right to bear arms is a symbolic and practical right that represents the separation of the government and the people.

This town *requires* gun ownership. Check out the crime rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

In the hands of good guys (any qualified citizen in good standing), guns prevent crime.

@ Tantris

Isolated incident. Do you want me to rattle off cases of registered gun owners stopping a serious crime in progress?

I hate when people just say "the constitution says so, so your argument is invalid." Obviously the constitution says so, nobody is denying that. The constitution also says that the constitution can be changed. An example of this is the second amendment. What we're arguing is that a change is needed. Please continue to argue the merits of guns, but shut up about the constitution.

"In the hands of good guys (any qualified citizen in good standing), guns prevent crime."
And in the hands of bad guys, they enable crime. The fact is that crime is lower in countries with stricter gun laws. If fewer people are committing crimes, fewer crimes will need to be stopped, and fewer people will die.

"Isolated incident. Do you want me to rattle off cases of registered gun owners stopping a serious crime in progress?"
That was an example, just as all of your examples would be. That's a terrible argument.

Ghug. Are you saying it would be better if homeowners who used guns on home invasions would be better off getting killed/raped/beat/robbed than killing the invader?

I am not sure what you mean could you elaborate?

The Second Amendment didn't protect any individual's right to bear arms until District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. Before then, the Second Amendment protected the right of a well-regulated state militia to bear arms, not individuals.

Yes, you've got a Constitutional right to bear arms. That right is four years old.

@gun
Don't say, "no one", when the issue of solving petty disputes with guns comes up, unless you are sure to never have one case on the other side.