The issue of criminal misuse of firearms is too serious to be distracted by passing "feel good" laws that do nothing to address the underlying causes. Such "dog and pony show" antics do nothing to protect the public and are mere theater. Let's try to address the actual issues.

But that might be getting too serious about addressing the causes. After all, we wouldn't want anyone to "feel" bad.

Given that the Supreme Court has ruled the RKBA is an individual right. How about we look at who is using the guns instead of just at the tool.

How about looking at the idiots who think guns are fun and teach their kids that they are fun, instead of extremely serious deadly weapons. Or is that the kind of mentality that we should all embrace? Because if it is, then looking for any kind of solution is like pissing in the wind.
Remember one thing. Nobody starts out as a criminal.

Instead of engaging in broad brush smear attacks on law-abiding persons who enjoy the recreational/sporting use of firearms. I'm sure the majority of people who use firearms for recreational and/or sporting purposes are aware of how dangerous they can be if misused and can teach both firearms safety and enjoyment of the activity. Or is accusing everyone who owns a firearm of being a pre-criminal the kind of mentality we should all embrace?

Most gun owners follow safety protocols, thankfully, or we'd have even more unnecessary deaths.
We do go after those who misuse firearms. Unfortunately, it is usually after the fact. There is the rub.

If you're not saying they are pre-criminals, just what are you saying? Other than parroting a meaningless, self-defining statement?

"We do go after those who misuse firearms. Unfortunately, it is usually after the fact. There is the rub."

How else do we go about it? We do the same with those who drive under the influence, shoplift or commit other crimes.

Rather than repeating the same old NRA/2A nonsense about individual rights and freedom.

You're more than welcome to statist authoritarians, if that is what you actually prefer. I'll keep my rights to freedom of speech; right to keep and bear arms and my 4th amendment rights, just to name a few.

Again, short of declaring people "pre-criminals" how exactly do you propose addressing violations of the law except for after the fact?

Invest in and promote safety technology, instead of whining about how it will never work. Stop seeing the carrying of weapons in public as something normal and civilized and recognize it as something to consider in only extreme circumstances.
Develop non lethal weapons for SD.

And lastly, stop comparing gun legislation with freedom of speech. If you think the UK, Australia and most of the rest of the world are "statist authoritarians", then you live in a bubble.

That said, enjoy your holiday which celebrates your freedom from those nasty authoritarians.

How do you address violations of the law before they occur short of declaring people "Pre-criminals".

I've never compared gun legislation with freedom of speech. You must have me confused with someone else. I also never said the UK and Australia were "statist authoritarians". Not sure where you pulled that out of.

I do, however, place great value on individual rights and freedom as opposed to placing those in the hand of statist authoritarians such as Bloomberg.

That is a part of the human condition. What needs to be addressed is how to reduce the conversion rate from pre to criminal. Specifically, we are talking about violent criminal behavior, as it applies to firearms. Obviously, if firearms were removed from the equation, then the violence rate would be substantially reduced. However, that appears to be a solution that 2A supporters don't seem to be able to wrap their heads around, because they think their so-called "right" to carry trumps public safety.
Of course, the NRA spokespeople counter with "then only criminals would carry guns". Well, that works pretty well in the UK, which I'm glad you acknowledge is not an authoritarian state.
I'm sure an ideal place for the US to be on this issue, would be to have the low homicide stats that Britain enjoys and still have the right to own firearms. Well, you might get a lot closer to that ideal if carrying was made illegal, barring extreme situations, such as police being armed in particularly dangerous situations. I recall pursuing a felon in the sixties, who had murdered three cops in London. He was armed and dangerous, and all my partner and I had was what we called a "humane killer", a single shot .38 for putting down injured animals. That was the one time I wouldn't have minded something a tad more serious.

As far as the violence rate being reduced if firearms are removed from the equation, I have to disagree. The violent criminals would simply use other methods. I don't see public carry as a problem to the degree that you do; the vast majority of those who carry in public are not the problem, it is the criminals with guns that are the problem. The "open carry" enthusiasts who carry long arms in a non-rural environment are another issue altogether. The look silly, IMHO and generally serve to inflame public opinion about an issue that needs cool heads and reasoned discourse.

The problem is a society that accepts the carrying of guns as normal behavior, be those guns hidden or exposed. The problem is a society where a significant number of people have bought into the marketing of fear to the degree that they feel the need to be armed. The problem is that those who arm themselves actually believe they are safer from the evils of this world, when in reality they make it worse. Every new public carrier makes the world a little less safe. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
Of course, these same people are the product of a society that has been told the more nukes America has, the safer the world will be. Fortunately, nukes are not as easy to steal as pistols.
Denying felons the right to own guns seems grossly unfair, and only serves to create a huge black market and consequently, many gun thefts. Let's face it, anyone who really wants a firearm in America can get one, regardless the extant laws and restrictions, which only make it harder for law abiding citizens.
So, one asks "What is to be done?" I'd say you need to sort out your priorities. If you want the "freedom" to carry guns then expect the consequences and bury your dead and accept those deaths as the price of freedom. If you want a safer environment, then quit buying into the guns solve problems mentality and learn to live with your neighbors peacefully.
Getting rid of guns on the street will reduce the violence, whether you think so or not. Sure there will be stabbing deaths and bludgeonings, but they will be very few compared to firearm fatalities. Accidents and suicide rates will also go down substantially, and anyone who doubts that is ignoring sound data.

You do not like public carry. I get it. No, carrying a firearm in public is not a magic talisman that will ward off all harm. But, you seriously think convicted felons should not lose heir right to own firearms unless those rights are restored by the state? Because "they will just get one anyway"? Then why make anything illegal. Sorry, I will still prefer a world where the law abiding person get as to choose whether to protect themself instead of someone else deciding for them.

US prisons are full of people convicted of non-violent felonies, who are barred from owning firearms to protect themselves and their families, even after completeing their sentences. Yet, you think it's OK for violent assholes, who have never been convicted, to have CC permits?
Of course anyone who really wants one will find one, because they are so available. By excluding an entire category of people, you feed a black market economy and create a sub-class of criminals.
I am not proposing that felons be armed, but rather nobody should be armed in public, including LE, barring exceptional circumstances.
OTOH, everyone should be able to defend their home against intruders. The home is sacrosanct, IMO, and is a valid place for standing one's ground. When we venture out in public, we expose ouselves to others and should be prepared to accept the risks associated with that. Carrying guns makes the marketplace no safer than having IED's in the trunks of people's cars.
You ask "why make anything illegal". Good question. Making substances or objects illegal is virtually pointless, as long as those things are available. Making certain kinds of behavior illegal is fairly easy to enforce, especially when such behavior is conducted in public. Let's face it, it doesn't take X-ray vision to spot most concealed weapons, especially to a trained eye.
You tak about "law abiding citizens". How many of those do you honestly think exist? C'mon, really!

Not what I said. You ignored the part where I said "unless restored by the state". I do think that unless convicted, under due process of law, one does have all the rights of a citizen. Even I f one is a "violent asshole". I do think that most people are, generally, law-abiding if you exempt statutory traffic laws. The fact is that approximately 99% of the law abiding gun carriers are not the problem, therefore I see no compelling interest in depriving them of the right to self defense in public.

How would you feel if 1% of the nukes in this world were in the hands of criminals or psychos?
If the stats are true and about 22% of Americans legally own firearms, then 1% would constitute 600,000 "legal" owners who are not law abiding. In other words, they are criminals who have not yet been caught. Your "pre-criminals". That is more than the entire US army. Hopefully you're wrong and the number is far less than 1%, or you've got a huge problem if and when the shit ever hits the fan.
On further research, I see that convicted felons do have their rights restored. In fact, even those with a history of violence have them restored, which is rather troublesome.

I agree that most people are, generally, law-abiding, but even if that amounted to 99.9% of gun owners, it still would leave about 60,000 who are not. About 1,200, on average, per state. And they constitute the pre-criminal contingent, because they haven't been convicted yet.

I also have no interest in depriving anyone from their right to self defense in public, but thinking that a gun is either the best or only way to defend oneself is foolish, imo. In fact, the introduction of guns as supposed SD devices, only serves to enhance the probability of death or injury. Most who decide to CC, I think, perceive themselves as vulnerable. With few exceptions, their carrying a gun is more likely to end disastrously in the event of a confrontation. I say with few exceptions, because some who see themselves as weaker or vulnerable, have gone to the trouble of being professionally trained and becoming highly proficient in the use of firearms. I fear they constitute a small minority of those who carry for SD.

that makes us about as "gun crazed" as New Zealand, and less so than Canada, Norway, Finland, France, and maybe Iceland.
While that number is about true of Florida (which is 25 percent, the same as France), Delaware, New York, and California, I doubt that it is a national average.

The percentage of nutjobs with guns is the point. The countries you mention have a very different attitude toward guns than your average NRA member.

other than someone you disagree with? There is religious nut job, RWNJ, LWNJ etc. IOW, the term "nut job" is meaningless. It is also a pejorative and a value judgement. I don't waste my time with meaningless terms.
Well yeah, because they view ownership as a privilege granted by the State, a concept that is an anathema to the Enlightenment and what yesterday represented.

When it comes to guns, it is someone who thinks carrying a gun makes both himself and the world a safer place.

To me a nut job is someone who puts dogma before truth and ideology before principle.

So now you know what I mean when I say "Nut job". I'm not interested in others' definitions.

Yes, that is a number I can live with. Or get on a boat and sail all over the world. Re nukes: last time I checked they were a lot harder to manufacture than firearms and did a lot more damage per use. Your attempted parallel does not work. Regarding pre-criminals, until their rights are removed by due process they get to keep them. That's how it is designed to work. If you cannot live with that you are free to sail off to whatever location suits you.

Nukes may be harder to manufacture, but they still exist n the tens of thousands. The amount of damage they cause is relative to how often they are used. Obviously, one nuke has they capacity to exceed 50 years of gun deaths if it targets a metropolitan area.
OK, that's a number you can live with. Enough said and I wish you the best of luck. Meanwhile, I'll stick with the rest of the world. Right now, I'm loving Italy.

to solve the problems you have self-identified?

That's why I'm still here engaging in constructive discussions with those who are not hardline extremists. How about you, or don't you see any problem? Just bury the dead and forget about 'em?
How's that xenophobia going, btw? Getting any help yet? A trip outside your box might help.

about the problems you have self-identtified instead of remaining and actually doing something to slve those problems.

Lack of respect for an opinion is not the same as fear.

What problems have I self-identified? What are you talking about?
Do you have any interest in joining the discussion, or just flaunting your xenophobia?

How is it that you have forgotten all of those posts?

I just comment on them. Having lived in your wonderful country for 35 years and having lot of family and friends there, I think I am quite qualified to comment on the subject. YMMV.
I've always found that discussions are more productive when we open ourselves up to different points of view.

Hmm! Don't think too long about that.

Gun-controllers/banners are not trusted by 2A advocates; fortunately, controllers do make intentions obvious with their "good start" pronouncements.

Advocates of 2A are as out of touch with reality as those who advocate banning all firearms. There is far more reasonable ground in the middle. This is not a black and white issue.

Your avatar indicates your indecisiveness.

My avatar indicates balance.Harmony of the natural forces of the universe. Level headedness. That's how some of us make decisions and manage to survive in this world without feeling the need to carry guns everywhere.
My issue is not with guns or people owning guns. It's with the idiots who think they are fun and teach their children the same, and the idiots who think they are effective problem solvers and the idiots who think more guns being carried makes for a better world. Bottom line, my problem is with idiots who make the world suck.

that comment was satire.

However, it doesn't mean that banning certain items wouldn't be somewhat of a solution. It all depends what is more important to you and how much colateral damage is acceptable.
There are lots of ways to skin a cat.
IMO, the most effective way to reduce gun violence is to enact accountability laws, where gun owners whose firearms are stolen, lost and/or misused are held accountable to such a degree as to make sure they take the necessary steps to secure their weapons. Secondly, enact laws that severely restrict public carry, again with severe penalties for those who disobey those laws.
In other words, rewrite 2A with public safety in mind, rather than accommodating the firearms industry, the NRA and its stooges.
It's really up to the people. Do they want Safety First or Freedom to Carry Guns First, because you can't have both.

carrying in the early 20th century? The KKK. They also got UBC passed in three states from 1919-1925. They got open carry banned in Florida in 1893, and in Texas during Reconstruction. Eroding those restrictions has not harmed "public safety". When it comes to any restriction, the State should have to show compelling interest, and there is no evidence of any. Like I said before, public safety and national security are the first refuge of scoundrels.

"Public safety is the last refuge of scoundrels"

read it in context and get back with me.

Tell the school crossing wardens what scoundrels they are. Tell the makers of seatbelts and airbags what scoundrels they are.
Where do you find this shit? The Libertarian Handbook? You're starting to sound very Randian, GE.

The victims of criminals who use firearms to commit their acts of aggression must be comforted by your attitude.

I don't find any use of firearms amusing. I found Scott Bach's use of the phrase "outdoor community" amusing, as if all of us outdoor types support 15 round clips.
I'm sure the families of the victims of multiple shootings will be pleased to see you support this Republican wannabe president's veto. If one can't satisfy one's bloodlust with 10 rounds, then one shouldn't be messing with guns.

I think they should work on items that actually impact this not just feel good symbolic things.

You mean like this common sense?

http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2013/04/03/as-lead-sponsor-in-house-on-gun-legislation-rep-diana-degette-appears-to-not-understand-how-they-work/93506/

Their combined knowledge of how things work would really change the world!

and then, to top it off, her spokesman tried to clarify her statement with this jewel:

The bill, which all of you have read, , would include all semi auto 22 rimfires. This would make illegal most all 22 rimfire semi-auto rifles as their under barrel tube magazines carry 15 rounds of ammunition. There was no grandfathering of currently owned rifles, and no time allowed to convert and/or dispose of these rifles. Had he signed the bill then the owners would have become automatic felons, subject to arrest and prosecution. And since NJ has a required permit and registration of all semi auto firearms law enforcement would have no problem arresting the owners.

I realize that many of the posters on DU would laugh and support that scenario, it would not end well for those that passed, or signed off, or for their political party.