I have strong feelings on this issue, but will try to moderate my language.

Certainly we need some sort of sane gun control in the U. S. Just look at just one of the things that happened today, and I can guarantee it was hardly the only such event.

I grew up on a farm, and I grew up with guns, because on a farm, you had guns for shooting varmints. I once picked a watcher crow (you do know that a flock of crows will post a lookout, do you not?) out of a tree at 150 yards with my Mossberg .22.

I took a gun safety class from the National Rifle Association back when it cared about gun safety (mumble) years ago.

I was taught to treat all guns as loaded unless I verified for myself that they were not and to never point a gun, loaded or unloaded, at a creature unless I meant to do it harm.

I was taught that guns were not toys, nor were they--er--portable manhood supplements.

Somewhere along the line, the concept of a "well-regulated militia" morphed into "unregulated irregulars."

And the National Rifle Association morphed into the National Rifle Marketing Association.

Furrfu.

No, society has been through the same things before, but never with so many GUNS! Guns ARE the problem!

I grew up on rural northern Michigan, for a time slept in the woods more than under a roof. Familiarized with rifles by family under tight supervision, then on a police range with the Boy Scouts, then spent 23 years in the US military at Combat Arms. I remember when the NRA was all about education and firearm safety instead of Russian Money in Politics! Everyone had a gun cabinet (many made their own, and made them to look good), and an ammo safe in a different room.

In the country almost everyone had a rifle, and nearly all were bolt action. (Birders also had a shotgun, but I never went in for that.) Getting an accurate shot the first time was a lot more important than how many rounds you could spray into the woods in a minute! We need to get back to sanity. The weapons used in most of these mass shootings are weapons of war, made to be able to engage mass targets with suppressive fire and maximum damage. They have no valid purpose in a civilian population.

In the UK we have a terrible problem right now with teenage knife crime. I can remember a time when it was unheard of for children to die of knife wounds. Now it seems to happen every other day. Many children who do not want to use knives carry one all the same for their own protection (as they see it). Often they end up with their own knife being taken from them and used against them.

But horrible as all this is, each crime involves only one victim. No one goes to school with a knife (or even a machete) and kills a dozen people there. They would be disarmed before they could do that. If those knives were guns, there would be a lot more dead.

Country people in the UK often own shotguns and use them to kill vermin. I have no quarrel with that. But I do not believe that guns are ever necessary in town.

Really? So present society is the same as the society that we had way back when? Did the past society way back when have the same disregard for life as now? Was it absorbed with cell phones, video games, lack of manners, lack of religeon, lack of respect, lack of honesty, lack of responsibility, lack of parental upbringing, etc. as society is today? If you think that, you may be part of the problem.

Thank You For Your Service, Sir ...

If you have been taught or have yourself taken the time to seriously learn what a firearm can do, and how to properly use it (care for it, store it, etc.), then you have also learned how to prudently avoid any situation that might call for you to "fire a shot in anger." (For example, you know damned well to stay away from "any such bar!")

But you have also developed skill. For example, if you see that a probably-rabid dog is attacking your livestock, you can precisely take care of the problem from a hundred yards away, and (importantly!) the poor mutt won't feel a thing.

"Placing that shot correctly" is not a trivial thing. You must practice, repeatedly, to develop the "muscle memory" that enables you to achieve the desired result on first shot. (But, as I also said, "marksmanship" can become a very-addictive hobby, because it is a one-person game of skill. May you never have to use it for the wrong reasons.)

Even if you are "buying a gun for 'personal protection,'" that gun might well be a greater danger to you (and your family) than it would be to any potential intruder, if you do not know. And, genuine tragedy might arise – in a split-second – from "what you do not know that you do not know."

as a kid i used to have air-rifles, i shot beer bottle caps with my father when i were 6-12 years old.

as a 20ish year old we (about 5 dudes) rented a whole gunclub and shot guns ranging from 22 to 50cal,
it were nice thing to do, one friend of mine had a shotgun and we went to shoot clay-discs at local shooting range.

i am familiar with guns but i am against lax gun control.

Agreed! Thank you for your service, Sir!
I have the greatest respect for the men and women who make the ultimate sacrifice so that I may enjoy the benefits of a free democracy.

According to government statistics, knife crime in the UK was falling until the mid 2010s. It rose again in the years following the election of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition government (the "austerity" era) and has continued to rise ever since - the only exception being a small drop during covid, followed by an ongoing rise back to almost 2018 levels. It is likely to continue to rise, along with e.g. homelessness, in light of the "cost of living crisis".

Poverty drives criminal behaviour, violent crime, assault, theft, etc. That has been the effect of the austerity era. The less fortunate have paid dearly for the "credit crunch". When you break it down, you obviously see very different statistics in more affluent areas. Poverty, leads to drugs problems, mental health problems and then to violent behaviour. Only the establishment of a fairer society can bring about any kind of change in that area.

So in a sense, the US gun lobby are correct in that "guns aren't the problem, people are", but that's the best argument for ensuring those problematic people don't get their hands on firearms in the first place - i.e. much stricter controls.

Here in the UK, it's much harder to stop someone getting their hands on a knife, or a broken bottle or anything sharp and pointed. That means you have to examine why they are doing it in the first place and tackle the root cause - same goes for gun crime in the US. The current regimes are unwilling to do that, and I doubt any of the alternatives as presented will either.

Agreed! Stricter controls are needed. More in depth background checks are needed so that people with a criminal history, mental health problems, drug addiction, etc. don't have the ability to buy firearms. Also people who are suffering with the above mentioned issues should get the support they need. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.

400,000,000/335,893,238 = 1.19, less than 5 per household if you consider the average household at 4 people. One of the things to remember about firearms is that very, very few people shoot a given firearm enough to wear it out. Quality firearms are engineered to take a LOT of wear and with minimal care will withstand a LOT of abuse. In a gun friendly culture such as that in the States families end up having many quality firearms passed on to them paternally. I'm not going to say how many firearms I have individually but several perfectly fine specimens came to me from Fathers Great and Grand, not to mention those I have added on my own. I won't be around to see it but I wouldn't be surprised if people are sporting around 100+ year old ARs in the future. I still have my Grandfather's 1938 Steven's bolt action single shot .22 that he used to help feed a family of 10 just after the 'Great Depression.' Works like a charm.

I find it interesting that the US congress made DC a "gun free zone". Only the lawmakers, law enforcement, and the military have a legal right to carry guns in DC. Why is that good enough for DC but not for the rest of the country?

Makes one wonder.....

You can never "pass a law" to "control guns," because criminals will possess them anyway. (Fortunately, many of them don't know how to shoot ...)

To me, the proper form of "gun control" is simply: education. Encourage people to get the training. Pay for it so that it's scot-free. Put great big signs in every gun shop. Very actively draw public attention to the many excellent videos that are already out there. "Offer a 50% discount on your purchase" if you can prove that you attended such-and-such before making your purchase. Literally anything – "to get the information out." For free. Go ahead and spend my tax money: it's money well-spent.

Because: there is only one person who "absolutely scares me witless." And that is: "the person who has just bought a firearm but knows nothing about it."

And the person who I implicitly trust: the guy/gal in the next bay at the range. "Betcha a beer that I can out-shoot you ..." (Of course you know the necessary limits of 'what I mean by that.')

After all, this is something that I actually experienced in one of my summers at Scout camp: "you fired five shots, and you know you hit the target every time, and now there is only one slightly-big hole in the paper." This is called: "braggin' rights." And you don't get over it.

The second amendment is just that, it's an amendment. So that means it can in theory be re-written or changed. If there was the political will guns could be outlawed and or limited. The constitution is a living document it's not static. It can be changed.