I was wondering if I should contribute to this discussion.
It bothers me to see people that I believe are reasonable taking somewhat unreasonable views. That also goes for gun control proponents misrepresenting what the other side says (which is often pretty reasonable as well).
This really doesn't need to be that complicated (says the guy with the huge post). Basically what JReece said in two lines earlier in the thread. I support having stricter restrictions to access to driving and shooting.
It is a question of freedoms. But some freedoms are more important than others - and reducing the chance of getting hurt in accidents or intentionally is clearly more important than someone else having extremely low barrier of access to some things.
This is easily seen if you take things to the extreme - I think even those against gun control do not argue that regular people should have a right to own powerful explosives (right? I hope not; if you still think that is reasonable stretch it up to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons until you are convinced there has to be a line somewhere). So it is a question of *where* to draw the line, and personally I think for urban self-defence regular citizens do not *need* lethal weapons. Nowadays there are many other options. Hunting is a different matter, and Ack has good examples of rural self-defence where something like a taser would not cut it.
Unreasonable restriction of freedom is not letting flight travellers carry bottles of water through security, not forcing people that want to own guns to go through training and getting licenses for it
It is hard for me to imagine anyone reasonable claiming that everyone should be able to drive motorbikes, automobiles or even trucks. So laws exist that require citizens to take tests and have licenses in order to drive. And roughly, the more likely the vehicle is to cause damage to 3rd parties, the strictest it is to get the license (at least in categories, I think getting a license to drive trucks is more demanding - it is in the countries I know about). Notice that motorbikes - arguably the most dangerous to the driver - are usually the least restricted. So it is about 3rd parties.
I actually think, given the huge amount of accidents, that regulations for driving are currently too lenient - but that is another topic.
Given that it is apparently not difficult to accept that it is a good idea to regulate access to using things - such as vehicles - that can be used intentionally or accidentally to cause damage to 3rd parties... I really do not see why so many people apparently object to some restrictions on the right to own and operate guns - as if the entire idea was unreasonable! And the license should be stricter for more serious stuff like those capable of automatic fire. Is anyone in the thread really objecting to this? Please explain to me why...
Also, in any place where getting a gun / license to have a gun legally is easier than getting a driving license, I think something went wrong. Given the primary purposes of each (respectively moving somewhere efficiently for vehicles and causing damage efficiently for guns), and comparing their more peaceful uses (transportation for one, hunting and self-defence respectively) I really have a hard time imagining a sensible context for access to guns being easier than access to driving (which I already said above I think is currently too easy, given the huge amount of accidents even in many developed countries).
Granted, you can say that even without a driving license I can buy a car and have it, just not drive it, so maybe they could sell the guns but not the ammo if you don't have the license, or something like that. You can always get around that by getting someone with the license to provide it for you, just as you can drive without a license of course. But those would (and should) be heavily penalized.
In European countries you can get access to guns legally, it is just harder. If you feel like you really need it then go through the effort, get trained and get the license.
Unlike what people have said, the harder access DOES make a difference (read Curlypaul's posts for example). As far as I remember, regular *police* in the U.K. don't carry firearms, that really tells you something I think.
Possibly the reason harder access does not make much of a difference in some U.S. states is that smuggling across state borders is much easier than bringing guns across national borders into e.g. the U.K.
Ivo.
