As a non-American, I can at least understand why the gun laws are as such. What I cannot understand, and perhaps a conservative American or two can help me out here, is why there seems to be such a taboo on talking about more regulation on guns? Why do the pro gun people seem to offer the same 2-3 reasons as to why we should not discuss it, and the country just drops it. Again, this is as a non american, but these are the usual 2-3 arguments I always see, and I just don't get how people can buy them.
The first argument is always that it is in the Constitution/is your right. Why is the Constitution not questionable? Last I checked it was amended several times. Owning a slave used to be allowed, but you folks had a little fight, and changed that. Now let me remind you that the whole "right to bear arms" came about BEFORE slavery was abolished. This seems to be a "because I say so" argument, and those types of arguments only work for parents talking to children.
Second, is that it is an issue of someones freedom. First off, I find it ironic that this line often comes from the same folks against gay marriage and legalization of pot, but that is another issue. Lets instead consider driving a car. If you subscribe to the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing, then a car and a gun are in the exact same category. Except to drive a car you need a license to prove you are capable of safely operating it, both in the skills, and the mental well being side of things. If they were to require a license to buy a gun, would that really restrict your freedom? If so, then I demand that the people lobbying for loose guns laws also lobby for the removal of drivers licenses (since that would be a much larger affront to your freedom).
Lastly, is the claim that it will not reduce the rate in which gun shootings happen. It is easy to find stats for either side of this argument, it is hard to find accurate and reliable information however. I would love to put up information showing the correlation of the availability of guns and the number of deaths due to firearms each year (not very hard to find), but this will be rebutted by some other source claiming the correlation is not causation in this case. Now, I would agree with the former over the later, but regardless of whether it would decrease crime, I think we can agree on two things. First, it will not increase the crime rate to have more restrictive gun laws. Second, if you look back at the long list of school shootings, at least 1 life would of been saved (that a definite low-ball number in my opinion) if gun laws in the area had been more restrictive.
So what am I missing? Why is there so little progress in the gun control movement? Please inform me of the flaws in my reasoning, and why there should not be more restrictive laws on guns.