For Americans tired of NRA bullying.

[Esquilax]

Well, I don't agree.  I understand there will be exceptions, but the vast majority of supporters (not just the ardent ones) do not "act with impunity," nor would they if tomorrow you said "ok, you can keep you guns."  They wouldn't go ape-shit crazy, running around shooting things if you were to acknowledge the right to bear arms.  What you've said seems to show your bias in the matter.  It appears you believe that the only reason us "weirdo gun nuts" don't go out shooting everything is because we think you're watching.  That's just wrong.  Do you think it's because some are afraid of going to prison? Maybe in some cases, but that's wrong as well.  I equate this to the same thing we atheists often say to the religious... Do you believe in god out of fear of death or wrath?  Do you follow the law because of prison?  No, we follow because it's what is right, because we do the right thing when nobody is watching.

I think you're reading an awful lot into what I said, here. I'm not an American, but I've seen the way that an unrestricted view of the second amendment causes some gun owners to act, and it can be quite disturbing. Obviously this isn't all gun owners, but at the same time, it doesn't have to be; not within the context of the discussion we're having, nor to reconsider how the second amendment should be understood.

So then why propose the idea above?

Why propose the idea that some gun owners are so invested in the second amendment as an unrestricted, concrete part of American reality that they act irresponsibly? Because I can point you to a video of a right wing conservative loudly yelling into a camera that the second amendment assures his right to own a gun, while waving a handgun around with one arm and holding his child in the other, the barrel at numerous points pointed directly at the child's face. He wanted to get them both into the frame because he thought it would piss off gun control advocates and liberals. That's why I'd suggest to you that the "right to bear arms," causes some people to act irresponsibly, thinking they have nothing to risk.

Conversely, the reason I'd point out that that not all gun owners are like that is because that is an honest statement: not all gun owners act in the profoundly idiotic way I've seen some gun owners act. I would never suggest otherwise, nor am I anti-gun: I don't understand the attraction, personally, and I wouldn't own one if given the choice, but that's just me. I am, however, anti-uncritically evaluating guns, which is why I'm examining the nuances of the situation without making blanket statements.

This idea very much applies to very nearly all forms of tragedy and massacre, including automobiles, airplanes, helicopters, lawnmowers, knifes, etc.  We can say take away all cars, but we need them.  We can say take away all guns, but we need them (go ahead, dispute that, I'm ready).

I'm not saying "take away all guns." I come from a country where you can obtain a gun, yet without the mass shootings that plague America. Part of that comes down to the expectations that my government has for you if you want to own a gun: like cars and planes, your gun needs to be registered, you need a license and training to operate it, a safe place to store it where it won't affect the public health, regular upkeep, and so on. Also, and you might find this interesting, you also need a demonstrable reason why you need your gun in the first place: it has to be for something, not just to be around or to have. I like my country's system, because it treats guns like weapons, where a certain level of responsibility is expected, rather than status symbols, political tokens, or objects like any other.

To be clear, I didn't reply to your post in order to argue the diametrically opposite position to yours. I genuinely wanted to see if a dialogue could be had.

I understand, and disagree.  Because Ralph down the street does X wrong doesn't mean I or any other person is going to do X wrong as well.  Emotional and personality issues can just as easily cause a person to kill groups of people with a car.  It truly IS a concern! We address the concern with mental healthcare, community awareness, realistic drug prevention and treatment (that's an entirely different thread, right?)  The issue is people, true, and attempting to take away guns does not address the issue, it creates another.  The problem would be inadequate defense against those not willing to follow the law.  Police are inadequate for that problem.

Again, not trying to take away your guns. Trying to maybe have you get a license for them, periodic inspections to see if they're working properly, that sort of thing. My issue is that the discourse surrounding guns, and the expectations that American society has for gun owners, need to be raised, and the fact that you read my post and leaped immediately to "take away all the guns," is kinda the problem: there's a great deal of variation, for a gun permitting society, between the way America handles it now, and a gun-free society. I think the former is too free and irresponsible about it, but I also think the latter is completely unnecessary for the goals I wish to see accomplished.

The problem is that the discussion tends to be too binary: you're either for gun culture in the US as it is now, or you want to take away all the guns. I don't want to be in either camp, and I think that sort of reactionary argumentation is a big hurdle in terms of raising the level of the conversation about guns. You are right, in that discussing this issue also requires a multi-prong discussion of other issues, but that doesn't mean that gun control, - not gun eradication- shouldn't be a part of that, nor does it mean that anyone wishing to focus on that should be redirected to the other things first. If you want to have a comprehensive solution to the issue, then you do at least need to address all of the parts of the problem.

When a politician stands at the podium and professes the intent to take all guns, and some cheer, that's going after the lawful gun owner.  To me, that legislation would look like the government saying we have to turn in all firearms.  When that doesn't work for obvious reasons, they would have to come door to door.  That just isn't really feasible either.  Taking all the guns is not reasonable or practical or viable.  It's a reaction to fear, just as the meaningless legislation (that failed) after Orlando. 

I'm sorry, I can't remember a single politician professing a desire to take all guns, nor a plan to go door to door doing that. Do you have a reference for that claim I could look at?