Significant limitations - I'd argue. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not arguing that all firearms should be banned. I believe gun ownership should remain legal, but under significantly stricter regulation. Handguns, in particular, should not be routinely carried in public. If someone wishes to own one for legitimate purposes such as sport shooting, collecting or use at a licensed range, that's fine. Keep it securely stored and transport it unloaded to and from where it is being lawfully used. What I do not accept is the notion that society benefits when large numbers of civilians carry concealed firearms in shops, restaurants, malls and other public spaces. Likewise, I have yet to hear a compelling argument for widespread civilian ownership of high-capacity semi-automatic firearms that outweighs the associated societal costs. This isn't an argument against the right to own firearms. It's an argument that rights come with responsibilities, restrictions and regulation, and that the current balance in the United States appears far too permissive. A simple question: If civilian firearm ownership in the United States were drastically reduced, and access to guns became similar to that of other developed nations, do you genuinely believe that ten years later America's rates of gun homicide, firearm suicide, mass shootings and firearm deaths would remain unchanged? Because if your answer is no, then you've already conceded that gun availability plays a significant role in the outcomes we're discussing. I don't completely disagree with your comment. I also think the United States has a broader societal problem, and many of the same trends can be seen across the Western world: declining social cohesion, increasing political tribalism, rising mental health issues, growing isolation, reduced trust in institutions, a coarsening of public discourse, and a general erosion of personal responsibility and consideration for others. Those are real issues. What I struggle with is that many other developed nations are facing similar social pressures, yet they do not produce anything like the same levels of firearm homicide, firearm suicide, mass shootings and overall gun deaths. That's the point - I think its a strong argument against guns. The existence of deeper societal problems does not somehow make firearm availability irrelevant. If anything, it makes the question of easy access to lethal weapons even more important. You can argue that guns are not the only factor. I'd agree completely. What becomes much harder to argue is that they're not a significant factor.
