[Red Slinger]

I'm no gun expert and I've never even held one. Nor am I a lawyer or sociologist. So, the following thoughts are just my amateur observations.

Whenever the issue of gun control in the US is brought up it invokes a few of the same replies from pro-gun advocates:

1) Personal protection: The argument goes that if you make guns illegal that it only leaves criminals with guns. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

In 2009, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 66.9% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.[4] There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[5] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[6] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[7]

The statistics regarding the victims of deliberate gun violence show that it's much more common for criminal on criminal violence, ie. gangs. But if the numbers are correct it seems like the number of accidental deaths and suicides would likely drop dramatically if there was a ban on guns or a reduction in automatic and semi-automatic weapons. The common refrain of "guns don't kill, people do" is only partially true it seems. Maybe more accurately it should state "people with guns kill other criminals, and sometimes themselves and loved ones". Not as catchy, I'll admit.

There also seems to be enough evidence that suggests that guns kept in homes often don't serve the purpose of protection. How many homeowners have protected their family and thwarted a violent criminal actions versus the number of homeowners that have experienced an accidental tragedy due to having a handgun in the house for protection? Handguns serve no useful purpose, as far as I can tell, except as personal protection, which is questionable at best. They are intended for only one purpose and that is to shoot other humans.

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.

It appears that guns kept for protection by non-criminals actually cause much more violence and death than they prevent.

Overall robbery and assault rates in the United States are comparable to those in other developed countries, such as Australia and Finland, with much lower levels of gun ownership.

The article goes on to say that the level of homicides in the US during robberies and assaults are much higher due to the higher level of gun ownership.

...significant number of homicides are the consequence of an unintended escalation of another crime in which firearms are present, with no initial intent to kill...

2) Sport and recreation: Some people like shooting guns for fun. I've never done it myself but I know people that have and they really enjoy it. I have no issue with it at all. Why not just keep the guns secured safely at a firing range?

When it comes to hunting, usually a rifle or shotgun will do. Is there really a requirement to have a semi-automatic weapon with a cartridge of 30 bullets to shoot a deer?

3) The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution: There's a really interesting comparison to be made between the 1st and 2nd amendment.

2nd: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By contrast, the first amendment has no qualification.

1st: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is a reason given for the right for the 2nd, but not for the 1st. It could be argued that that reason no longer exists and therefore the 2nd amendment is no longer valid.

Also, this concept of a well-regulated militia is alive and well in the US. It's called the National Guard. If an American wants to protect themselves from the threat of a tyrannical government they don't need to buy guns, a six-pack and their fishing buddies. All they need to do is join the National Guard.

Maybe I've naive about this issue because I don't have a gun and have never even held one. But it seems to me that when you have a weapon (handgun, assault rifle, etc.) that's primary purpose is that of shooting other people, you shouldn't be surprised when other people get shot with them. And if you want to prevent more people, but obviously not all people, from getting shot with these people-hunting tools than you remove them.

Apologies for the length.