That is why we need stricter gun regulations. It's in no means an attempt to punish responsible gun owners nor an attempt to take everyone's gun away. I think most people do recognize that there are plenty of people who own firearms and use them properly. This is all about establishing additional provisions that could essentially prevent another tragedy in Arizona, or the recent school shooting in California.
Case in point, if the Assault Weapons Ban didn't expire in 2004 there would have been a good chance that the amount of casualties in Arizona would have been lower. Loughner shot 31 rounds before trying to reload. It was only when he was trying to put in another clip that people were able to stop him. The bill that expired under the previous administration would have limited the number of shots per clip to ten. Considering that most shooters, including most trained cops, let off several shots with only a few of them actually hitting their target and knowing the history of events on the day Loughner shot and killed 6 people, it's pretty safe to say that the number of dead or injured people wouldn't have been as much.
And here's another case in point. Let's look at how another country handles the issues of guns. In Canada, there are roughly 7 million guns in people's houses and about 11 million homes in the country. That's a rather high gun ownership ratio, yet they have less than a tenth of the same gun related violence. Their regulations are strict but pretty painless once you put it all together: Every gun has to be licensed and registered. Every gun owner has to undergo a safety course, followed by a month long waiting period where if you're currently or were married you would have to bring in some form of certified letter from your spouse endorsing your usage of it. Plus, they don't allow the selling of guns that can fire more than 10 rounds. It doesn't eliminate all of the gun violence, but it does prevent a lot of it from happening.
Why can't we do this here in America? If gun regulation is wrong, then I want to know a real reason that is based on fact and not blinded ideology as to why something as simple as this (or a version of it) shouldn't be implemented in our country in order to ensure the safety of innocent people?
I agree with you about having stricter gun laws. Unfortunately there are too many careless people out there that do not maintain a high level of responsibility when it comes to firearms so it ruins it for those who do. As far as I'm concerned, all weapons and gun owners should be registered. I know it's not required in every state (like my own) but it should be mandatory. I also believe that if a gun owner's negligence leads to a crime they should face tough consequences. Perhaps this might lead to people using a lock box instead of a nightstand as a handgun case.
My husband applied for his license to carry when we lived in Massachusetts, where there was a waiting period and in-depth background check. While I wasn't getting my license to carry, I did take the hunter and gun safety course with him. There was a test and everything, which had to be passed with flying colors. To this day we apply every safety measure you can think of to secure my husband's rifle. As far as I'm concerned, it's not difficult to secure a firearm properly so I have a hard time understanding why these safety measures aren't taken by every single gun owner.