[Pond, James Pond]

@ Mleake

Please note: I never said that none of you had travelled. I was interested to see how many. If you have visited to the UK, then great: you have a taste of the place or part of it. If you have lived there, you'll have an even better idea of real life in that country.

I have travelled to the US. However, I would not claim to know it. I am sure those who were in the military have travelled a wee bit. Having not been in the military, perhaps you can enlighten me: do you feel that travelling in a military capacity gives you as clear a picture of a place as travelling on civvy street?
I ask as my friends who were in the Armed Forces had spent time in Northern Ireland, and Germany. They seemed to know their bases and a few watering holes, but could have been accused of "immersing themselves" in the local culture... particularly Germany. In the case of Northern Ireland that was probably ill advised.

@ BGutzman.
Good to hear that guns are statistically safer than cars.
Safer and safe are alas not the same, especially when dealing with a piece of engineering designed to efficiently kill.
Your previous statements suggest your logic to be "a gun is safer, therefore any and all can have access", whereas for me the more prudent approach is "it is safe and therefore all can have access". Given that guns cannot be called arbitrarily safe, by their very nature and purpose, it seems wiser to ensure and check all those with a gun know what the heck they are doing.

You also cite mental illness. Well, again, I prefer to know that there are systems in place, for example here in Estonia, that have at least a basic psychiatric evaluation into a person's mental well being before letting them go and buy a killing utensil. Mleake mentioned explosives, well that is a rational and logical approach if you chose to go nuts, but headcases are sometimes as impuslive as others are calculating. Similary some are more prone to crimes of passion than others. You get my drift.

The former approach (gun handling and safety) would logically make NDs less likely, and the latter (So, Mr Pond. Are you a nutter? No, Doctor.) would no doubt avoid mentally unstable people from having access to a destructive weapon.

With all said and done, the relative dangers of cars v guns is a bit off topic. My bad, I brought it up. But as a comparison, for me it holds. Both require careful handling.

Still, you can guess that I disagree with your view of absolute zero gun control. I am sure that the principle fits the American constitution. However, in reality, I doubt that every person who has or could have a weapon, if they simply chose to go in a shop and buy one, would be as responsible a gun owner as, doubtless you, and most other TFL members are.
Not everyone is intelligent.
Not everyone is mature.
Not everyone is responsible.
These are all traits I would like to see in a person living next door, if they owned and keep a gun.

Ergo: for me pragmatic gun control, is not bad.
Excessive, baseless, indiscriminate gun control is.
(and the UK is not somehow the epitome of a failed state!!)