tis an interesting question. countries like canada which allow people to own guns have low gun crime. but america with similar laws are busy shooting each other on a massive scale. that is to do with the failure of american society though.

but what would banning guns acheive. look at what britain did after dumblane. we banned all handguns. and? people handed them over. well only the law abiding folk. the gangsters and scum kept theirs. which makes no sense. the gun ban wouldn't have prevented dumblane anyway. as thomas hamilton held a handgun illegally anyway. it was an over-reaction.

here in britain now the police have called an "amnesty" on air, imitation and bb guns after some baby got shot and killed in glasgow (where else?) because some neds when they were busy shooting at the local fire service putting out a fire. it caused public out cry. and so whenever a kids gets hit by a air gun pellet instead of being worth a small note in the hidden part of a tabloid paper. now it is splashed on the front page. it's a totally reactionary coverage.

and it's not a real amnesty as all the above mentioned guns are not illegal. so you are free to keep them (like me) if you want. concerned parents basicly handed them over and that was it. it's a total failure. is your local ned going to think even if it was made illegal "i better hand it over so i don't get into trouble" is he heck. he'll keep at and the only people who it has influence on are the people who had no thought of shooting people anyway.

it would fail in america as well in the same. like it failed after dunblane here.

but what is the point of owning a gun? to defend yourself? but the guy robbing your house will probably have a gun as well. so it just become a first to shoot wins scenario. one person will die.#

so why so much gun crime anyway when other countries (look at the swiss for instance) have such a low rate. it's society really. and that isn't gonna be changed for a while. but there's no quick solution.

should guns be banned? yes. is it possible to do so? no. is it logical to do so? no. the way america works and it;s high levels of crime would just not permit it. it would leave the weak defenceless. but in theory a removal of all handguns would be a good thing.

what is not needed though is more than one. or a machine gun. or a sniper rifle. if it is purely to protect your home a handgun will suffice. close quarters combat that is what it was designed for. you do not need an m16. neither do you need a cache. you are not fighting a battle. a simple handgun or revolver will protect your home adequetly. a low gauge shotgun (like the one cobain used) is border line. but there is no need for anything else.

they can't even be used for a revolt. revolts ar now impossible after the first world war. why? tanks, planes and lots of other clever military stuff which noone has in their garage. if you were start a lovely revolt then you just end up with tianamen square.