remember what happened during prohibition? lets not try that one again because as it did back then, it will not succeed.

Its not really the amount of guns that is the problem, its their availability to just anyone. My country (Finland) has an amazingly high guns to people ratio (larger than in the US) but crime rates are low, mostly because getting these firearms is a long process.
The problem with gun control in the US (imho) is the easy availability of firearms. If you really want to gun, sure get it, but don't make it very easy. Join the local militia or sign up for the army if you actually want to regularly use firearms, chances are you will never need to use your gun if you own one.

Just make sure bullets cost $1000 each.....That should help slow gun crime down a bit...

__________________
The last time this country mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake.

I make my own bullets...

Sounds like fun, can you teach me how?

Besides, if bullets were suddenly taxed up to cost 1000$ each, then alot of people would just make their own, or get illegal ones. Its not like bullets are hard to conceal.

I am personally not a big fan of guns. I have never held one, never shot one, and don't really plan to. However, I think that people should have the right to bear arms if they so desire--but there needs to be more stringent gun control in order to prevent accidents from occuring. The truth of the matter is, if someone wants a gun, they're going to find a way to get one.

I think we need to look at why the 2nd amendment exists.

Dictators subjigate their populations by control them through access to information, basic human needs like food and electricity and weapons. Examine the current dictatorships around the world and you will find that only the army and "security forces" can own guns -- not the general population. This was recognized when the US Constitution was drafted.

The result was the agreement that a standing malitia would exist at the state level, individuals could own weapons and that individuals would not have to board soldiers in their homes. The state level maitia was a check on central government. The right to bear arms, as opposed to arm bears, was key for the individual to have a check on their government.

The better discussion -- in a modern society -- as opposed to 1774 -- what kind of legitimate controls are required that keep people safe without violating the original intent. Mandatory gun training on par with the time and complexity to get a drivers license might be a place to start. Its most interesting to note that the countries outside of the US with the highest rate of gun ownership have the lowest murder rates.

Good topics, but the NRA won't even discuss them. I was an NRA member for 25yrs, but quit in disgust many years ago when LaPierre and his crowd changed it from a working organization to their own private lobbying organization.

As I previously posted, in our state we have concealed carry that meets your criteria of "on par with the time and complexity to get a drivers license." So far, it's worked very well, it is self-financing and run through the county sheriff's office. I would like to see it extended to all gun owners in the state.

In addition, I would like to see liability laws implemented that make parents who leave unlocked guns around for their kids to get into liable criminally negligent.

As far as the gun violence rates, the US is up there with some raunchy third world countries, which is complete nonsense.

oc

Are you calling Finland a third world country?

Straight from the Small Arms Survey 2003:
The US has rates of 83-96 firearms per 100 people. The gun violence rates reflect this.

The rough average for Europe is around in the mid 20's per 100.
Otherwise, I think SprintHawk has pretty much nailed the things that should be examined about US gun control.

gun control does not call for a law against owning weapons just more limitation.