I don't understand why people think that by guns being banned in America would reduce crime? Of course it won't stop crime because criminals are not going to go buy a gun legally anyway, but rather from the back of the van.

Large majority of gun owners do not like the idea of the background check, which in my opinion does is a very good. I had a background check when I purchased my gun and no problems at all. I have absolutely no problem with that. Of course, it won't stop criminals completely, but at least it will reduce the number of those who should not own guns. In addition, criminals will think twice about harming someone when you live in a state where the gun laws are not so strict........and no, I am not a NRA member nor do I ever wish to be one.

I've been on both sides of this argument and I can certainly sympathize with the respective positions.

I've always found it interesting that liberal argument on gun control is seen to be derived from a presupposition that individuals cannot act responsibly with the possession of firearms while at the same time assuming that collective bodies of individuals (such as our federal government) can be or is a organization that will responsibly conduct legislation and execute public policy and laws to the betterment of the public good.

On the other side, the conservative argument proceeds from both the standpoint that the individual can act responsibly with a firearm and/or (agreeing somewhat with the liberal basis) does not want to be found without a firearm in the company of irresponsible individuals who are carrying guns. It is also interesting that the former basis for the conservative argument assumes that the right to bare arms is the responsible individuals right to protect themselves against a hypothetical attack or control of an irresponsible collective body of individuals (a empire or dictatorship or oppressive government.)

To a certain extent, you have to identify the motive driving your position, whether it be fear of our government or trust in our government, and determine the extent to which that motive might be hindering your ability to critically evaluate the opposing argument fairly in light of your own.

Personally, I don't think banning the purchase and use of firearms in the United States will do anything to lessen the crime rates in our country. As has been stated already in this forum, the gun market will continue regardless of federal policy. Also, we've nurtured a culture of hopelessness and violence in our country that (while it may not be root cause of the problem) has certainly not helped the conditions that drive a person to resort to violent recourse to deal or cope with certain circumstances where better opportunities, financial security, or a better education might help them to make more responsible decisions.

I realize that I'm being horribly idealistic here (as I'm often accused of being) but I feel that a better public education system, a more dynamic economy, and a more promising future for the people of our country will do much more than taking the guns out of all the sock drawers in the U. S. of A.

And, the argument that it works in Britain fails to address the geographical size difference between North America and the British Isles, the demographic diversity, the population counts, and the cultural conflicts that distinguish the two nations.

Tighter restrictions on gun purchases and ownership are definitely necessary. A ban is not.