By a wide margin, the best way to prevent gun deaths is to not place gun debates in a factual forum with a gun-toting moderator! 
Off to Great Debates.
Few people in the UK have ever had a gun, mostly just shotguns owned by farmers and for sport. Recent tightening of gun ownership laws (banning of all handguns and semi-automatic rifles - both in response to public outrage when legitimate owners went bonkers) did not affect many people. I do not think you could transplant our gun laws to a country like the US where gun ownership is widespread.
Excuse me if I first comment on two points
As you have a british email address, I’d imagine you’re as aware as I am that gun crime went up last year by a rather large amount, particularly in London where there’s been a 100% increase in firearms-related crime. Does this sound to you like a good model? On a similarly inaccurate note:
Of course it is, that’s why I have a couple of rifles and a shotgun, all legally.
As to the OP, I’d offer two main proposals.
The first has to be education - all of the above points about the inconsistency between the handling of sex, drugs and guns[sup]*[/sup] at school level are spot on. How can people argue that educating people on sex and drugs helps to make it less likely people will experiment, but not for guns?
Secondly, you do have to look at some of the social issues as well. Crime is generally higher in social groups where there is poverty, poor access to education and minimum job prospects. There’s also the general point that if someone grows up feeling their life to be worthless, how highly will they value another persons?
[sup]*[/sup][sub]Had to fight an urge to add rock 'n roll to that list[/sub]
Ok, so we make penalties equally harsh for all weapons used during the commission of a crime.
It’s not unusual if it’s implemented widely and used.
Cruel? Barbaric? No way. Suppose a 20 year old kid makes a bad judgement call and robs a gas station, and nobody is shot.
His 20 lashes would take about 5 minutes out of his life. So he’d have a short but intense period of really bad pain (enough to make him not want to do it again, hopefully), and then it’s over. He can go about his business again, work, see his family, etc, with no threat of future retribution as long as he stays out of trouble.
Contrast that with the same kid under our current system: He earns himself a prison sentence. A reasonably light one: 5 years. He spends 5 long years in a prison cell, loses his job, loses his apartment/house/whatever because he can’t work to pay for it, is isolated from his family, and spends all his time surrounded by violence and other criminals.
Eventually he will adjust to his situation. Otherwise he won’t survive. Often, the only way to get along with a bunch of criminals is to become more like them. So we have effectively destroyed this guy’s life. We have permanently affected his family, and we have changed his outlook on life. He has had a social life consisting solely of other criminals, and has trouble finding work once he’s out.
What has he learned? Only that the state has taught him a way of life that he can’t continue in normal society, and that the free food and room he’s become accustomed to are now gone.
Which is more cruel? In my system, the only permanent change is scarring on his back, which would act as a reminder of the consequences of his actions. Many countries around the world use flogging as punishment, and it is proven effective. If Michael Fay, the American kid caned in 1995 for spray painting several cars, had remained in Singapore, I’m 100% certain that he would not have broken the law again.
Sorry for the hijack.
"Given the gun control is A Bad Thing, how can we minimize shootings? "
Why bother?
Shootings and Columbine-style rampages are the price to pay to have an armed society. It’s like asking,‘We don’t want to ban cars or alcohol, but how do we eliminate drunk driving?’ You don’t.
As long as we have guns in our society, these things are going to happen. Laws and consequences will be ignored, safety features will be over-ridden, accidents will happen and people will get shot. It’s like trying to lose weight without dieting or excercise-won’t happen. Yeah, education might help, but only marginally. It hasn’t worked too well with drugs and sex education, why would it work with guns?
**
These two are close enough to be considered one category. To eliminate these you have to look and see why most murders happen. How many murders occur simply because someone gets angry in the heat of the moment? How many murders are related to robbery or the drug trade?
**
Keeping an eye out for other people would be a great way to prevent suicides. I think it is mostly teens who attempt suicide but I could be wrong. Keeping areas open at schools where they felt comfortable talking to someone would probably help.
**
These aren’t very common as it is right now. I mean the numbers are negligable.
**
This really doesn’t need to be a seperate category. Either it is covered under murder or it is covered under accidental shooting. If you want to eliminate #7 then you
fix the other problems.
**
It might, I can’t say for sure but this is my belief.
**
I don’t think the government needs to be spending money providing me with a gun range.
**
They do need some sort of gun safety course. I don’t know about actually learning how to handle a firearm or watching one be fired though. I would like a safety course that didn’t demonize guns or gun owners. My 7 year old neice seems to have picked up from school, in Texas no less, that only bad people have guns.
**
Many stores offer courses in gun safety and shooting. And all new guns come with instructions.
Marc
Just a quick word of explanation on the “Swiss approach” to gun control:
Gun ownership is not required of every citizen in Switzerland. Many citizens happen to have working guns at home because every able-bodied swiss male has to join the army and is on active duty, then the reserves, for most of his life (until approximately 55 years of age). Women have the option of joining the army but are not required to do so. There are exemptions for various reasons (e.g. physical disability) but if you choose not to serve in the armed forces and do not have a legal justification for your refusal you will go to prison and have a civilian criminal record.
When serving in the armed forces, you are expected to keep your weapon at home (depending on the weapon of course - you can’t bring a tank to stash in your garage or an anti-aircraft gun in your living room) for the purpose of quick mobilization of the army in case of emergency. So people that serve in a branch of the armed services that requires the use of an assault rifle (for example) will take the assault rifle home between their stints of military duty (four months of "boot camp when you’re 19 and then periodic “refresher courses” every other year until your active duty ceases.) The gun you keep at home must be stored safely with the firing pin removed or whatever method that will prevent it from being discharged, and you are forbidden to use it when you’re not serving military duty.
My father who was in the army band had no gun at home, only a bayonet. So even people that serve in the army do not necessarily have a weapon at home.
The reasons to explain the lack of gun violence in Switzerland are not (IMHO) because so many citizens have weapons hidden away. I would suggest instead (without any proof) that the low crime in Switzerland might be explained by the relative prosperity of most of its citizens and a fairly decent social safety net for the underprivileged. In addition the Swiss government has a fairly strict control of its inhabitants. e.g. When you move from city A to city B, you need to retrieve your official “residency permit” from A’s municipal government office and register with city B. (side issue: I was amazed when I moved to the USA to learn that you could just pick up and move anywhere in the country without informing any government office. How do you check voting records? Library memberships? How do you find criminals? were some of the thoughts that occured to me.)
I’ve had a notion for a long time that the Federal and/or State gov’t should offer slight tax breaks if a citizen (whether they own a gun or not) voluntarily undergoes a series of gun training courses. The tax breaks shouldn’t be very high, of course, but enough to offer an incentive for people to want to take the trouble.
We can’t force people to be responsible, but we can make them want to be responsible.
I don’t think anyone is trying to imply that gun ownership is compulsory in Switzerland, but rather that widespread possession of firearms is a fact of life there yet no one is standing on every street corner mowing down everyone in sight with a Steyr-AUG. Granted, the standard of living is higher, so crime is rarer as a result. IMO, this vindicates the position that banning the guns themselves is not the answer. In light of this, banning guns implies that responsible ownership by Americans is not possibile, something I equate with an attack on my character. Yes, for me and, I think, most other gun owners, the fight against gun control is personal, just as much as the fight against sexual-preference is personal for homosexuals.
What about that addict who is robbing you for money for next hit? Even if its legal, you can still bet there’ll be those who need the money.
**
Not something I’d particularly want my tax dollars to go to, but not a bad idea, in theory. One small, problem would be that the criminal could also be honing his sharpshooting there. The more skilled the criminal is, the more dangerous. (See Tim McVeigh, etc.)
How about lessons just for those purchasing a gun, and their families?
I have to go now, but I’ll come back and expand on these things later.
No group is more vocal about their rights than gun ownership advocates. And I have no problem with that.
But why are so many of these same folks so quick to bleat about what what should be mandatory for other people?
What about my right to not own a gun, and to decide if and what to teach my kids about guns? What about their right to not give a shit about guns, one way or the other?
My take on the OP is that kalashnikov simply want’s to give gun ownership fans everytthing they want, and the opposition can just shut up and go away.
Nice idea, you guys, but life simply doesn’t work that way.
More people are killed by cars than by guns. Do you want mandatory driver’s ed, and mandatory car ownership?
Ok, that was silly. But let’s knock off the also silly mandatory stuff. To claim freedom for yourself you have to acknowledge the freedom of others.
Please.
Slick move, kalashnikov. A gun issue in GQ. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Posted by Neurodoc:
This is fallacious. Are you saying that if Australians had guns, there’d be less crime? In any event, crime in most Australian states is on the decline except, from memory, in Western Australia, which has a glut of cheap heroin.
In case you didn’t know, in Australia, following a shooting in Tasmania a few years back, a conservative government implemented a plan to encourage citizens to turn in their weapons to be scrapped, funded by an extra tax (the “gun levy”) of 1% of income on all taxpayers - and it had enormous popular support. Australians see the American example and they didn’t want to follow it.
If Americans insist upon their archaic right to bear arms, then they should be taught to use them properly. If you want a gun licence, you should first have to do a course on gun safety, and pass it. No one else should have to bear the burden of your stupidity, carelessness or negligence with firearms. A motorcycle is somewhat less dangerous, and people need to pass a course to ride one of these.
You should also have to lock them up. Advocates of firearm use say this inhibits home defence. A friend of mine (who posts here, and may join this debate) to his credit keeps a safe under his bed. This is responsible gun ownership. Unfortunately not that many people are responsible. It may be difficult to enforce, but if the law was on the books, then people would know that it is legally as well as morally unacceptable to leave a firearm easily accessible to thieves and children.
If you want to convince me of the wisdom of using government
and educational time on gun safety, you’ll need some better examples than that. Driver’s education isn’t mandatory in public school in most states. We teach sex ed, and two thirds of kids have sex before age 18. And numerous studies have concluded that DARE is completly ineffective in the long term.
And it’s also true that violent crime in America has dropped across the board, including states such as New York and California where gun laws are very restrictive.
Smooth, Kalashnikov. You’re saying that mangeorge’s parenting decisions violate your right to not get killed, and thus you have the right to educate his kids instead. Would you like to provide some evidence that children of non gun-owners who don’t learn anything about firearms techniques are more likely to become violent criminals? I didn’t think so.
Sewalk…
No comments on your argument, just wanted to say that I think the AUG is a damn fine instrument.
Dave Stewart…
No, he’s saying that even though Australia instituted strict (by American standards), they did not experience the expected reduction in crime rates, indicating that a “Gun Ban” (or gun control itself) is not an ideal solution.
In almost every gun debate, the Big 3 (Australia, Canada, and/or England) are pointed to for comparison. The comparison works on some levels, but doesn’t work on others (economic and social climate, the fact that neither of those three ever had a major gun culture, etc.)
Not to become violent criminals. To handle a gun they find somewhere, and shoot someone - or themselves - by accident.
Another argument for public ranges (not necessarily free, just open to the public) is that if people had a safe, convenient place to shoot, they’d be less likely to shoot in some marginally safe semi-rural areas. I know people who don’t have any range available who just go shooting out in the woods. That’s fine if they choose the right spot, but some of the places they use are not as remote as they should be, or don’t have a proper backstop.
Even relatively responsible shooters may not realize just how far bullets travel, or how they can ricochett in any direction. I was certainly surprised the first time I shot some .22 tracers. They were bouncing off what we thought was a good backstop. So any demonstration of the effects of firearms should include tracers as well as reactive targets.
If anyone wants a link to a source of .22 tracers that are MUCH cheaper than the ones you see at gunshows, email me.