I tend to avoid adding to threads like this because, in general, they polarise pretty quickly, with the usual opposing people promoting the usual opposing arguments. However, two assertions in the argument strike me:

1. The Kennesaw, Georgia gun law ordinance - where every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition. Quote: "crime rate dropped by half after this law was passed". I simply wonder how having this ordinance in place in Newtown would have made any difference to what took place. A mentally disturbed person - probably intent on killing himself as well as others - wouldn't have given a damn. And who could possibly have stopped him in a classroom at the time?

2. I've heard it said, over and over again, that people must have the ability to own firearms because, if they don't, there will be no protection against all the criminals with their illegal guns. And you'll never get rid of all the illegal handguns. Interesting attitude, that last one. I was watching a documentary on the Space Shuttle last night, about it docking with a space station, the crew carrying out various tasks in space, and then it's re-entering Earth's air and landing safely and precisely. Amazing isn't it, that one of the most intelligent, technically excellent, clever, constructive and ingenious nations on earth can't even begin to make a start about thinking through the problem of getting rid of illegal guns. It just throws up its hands in horror and says, "Oh we can't possibly do that!"

Think of all the logistics involved in creating and maintaining a huge army, navy and airforce, planning an invasion, countering terrorism, utilising complex intelligence networks, etc., etc. But you'll never get rid of illegal guns? Why not make a start?