I'm kind of watching the whole thing from afar with a certain amount of incredulity, if not confusion. I am from a country that had fairly strict gun laws, but after the Port Arthur massacre (we have had only one, not counting the Aboriginal massacres of our past history) in Tasmania just over ten years ago, instigated without any real opposition, even tighter gun laws. This included a nationwide moratorium on the surrendering of unlicensed weapons, and compulsory surrendering of automatic and semi automatic weapons. Licensing, registration and regulation of existing guns and gun owners were also toughened.
Ok, I know it's not perfect, and there will be illegal gun ownership out there by loonies, but we stand by our record on massacres. Make gun ownership difficult, and if it saves at least one life, isn't it worth it?? I read above (and elsewhere) that if everyone has a gun, the massacre perpetrator would be taken out before he manages to kill anyone else!!! Sorry, are we talking running gun battles by people taking the law into their own hands and deciding who is to be shot, what if someone else comes in and then decides to pop off the person shooting the loon?? Where the heck does it all end?? Wild west again???
I think the US has to do a major rethink on gun laws and the second amendment, even if it means prising the gun from the dead hands of Charlton Heston, as I'm sure innocent bystanders have rights as well. Heck, you don't have anymore Redcoats or Redskins to fight any more do you?
Hope I didn't offend anyone with this, I didn't intend to, but like I said, as an outsider I'm really confused.
Bill........................;-(