Are we ever going to get tired enough of school shootings that we actually do something about them?

[branford]

200. And nevertheless, still more children die in swimming pools than by guns,

and I doubt there are over 300+ million residential pools, as there are privately owned guns in the USA.

My point, however, is that if saving lives by ridding ourselves of discretionary objects were the goal, swimming pools would have been banned long ago. Guns are far more of a cultural or region battle than a true safety issue, particularly since such a large percentage of gun deaths are suicides.

The "if only guns were regulated like cars or pools discussion" also presupposes that there are few if any laws about the ownership and use of firearms. Such a implication is absurd. In addition to basic restrictions like the much of the criminal code, federal, state and local, and the vast myriad of rules concerning self-defense and hunting, you need to be a legal adult or older to purchase a gun, you cannot be a convicted felon or adjudicated mentally ill, fully automatic weapons are very heavily restricted, licenses and permits are often required both to own or carry firearms, and quite literally, many thousands of pages of other laws, rules and regulations nationwide.

Simply, be careful what you wish for. If guns were regulated like pools (or cars), more people would likely own and carry them. Just think about the vast multitudes of scary and irresponsible people own and operate cars despite insurance, licensing, registration, proficiency and safety requirements (and cars are not protected by a constitutional amendment).

I'm also often amused by the demand for insurance for guns. Insurance for firearms is already cheap and readily available, and often included in basic homeowners insurance. It's so inexpensive because, given the hundreds of millions of guns owned by Americans, the chance the insurance company will have to pay out for injury or damage due to a negligent use or discharge is virtually zero.

Most gun injuries and death are the result of suicide or intentional criminal use of a firearms. Insurance does not normally cover intentional acts, no less criminal acts, and thus such insurance is not even available, whether mandated by the government or otherwise. Similarly, insurance would not cover damage by an illegally owned firearm.

Those who demand insurance appear know little about insurance or firearms, and simply want a stealth tax to dissuade people from purchasing firearms. I would no more support such a policy that would only permit the wealthy to own and operate firearms, than I would support a poll tax.

There are a number of restrictions that many gun owners (which actually does NOT include me) would consider. However, honesty and respect is a precondition before any discussion begins. All the "gun humper," "child killer, "NRA stooge," "redneck," "small penis" insulting nonsense needs to end yesterday.