Mayor of Nagasaki shot dead.  Private ownership of guns is illegal in Japan.  Gun murders are rare.  No one could ever accuse the Japanese of being "gun crazy," that's for sure.  I seem to remember a legendary story about early firearms of Edo and how the Samurai warriors swiftly came around to rejecting the artless act of death by gun.  So they melted down all their guns and made a giant statue of a Buddha out of the remains.  I did hear this story though it may be urban legend for all I know.  It rings of a symbolic truth even if it's false.

Well, anyway, bullet to the heart of the mayor of Nagasaki.  Nagasaki -- in the nuclear weapon community, otherwise known as "Number Two."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/17/world/printable2695446.shtml 

What's the world coming to?

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

 I hope it isn't the End Times or else I will have so much egg on my face.

I'm not much one for 'gun control' since it works about as well as 'drugs control'.  I also am happy to accept the implication made in 'Bowling for Columbine' that some countries have stacks and stacks of guns and barely use them.  When gun violence doesn't have a really simple explanation (robbery, crime of passion or revenge, assassination of public figure) and it is something like a sniper on a water tower or a kid in a school, I don't think it does much good to accusingly point the fingers at the nearest sherriff or principal and then harp on about 'lessons to be learned'. 

The problem is some kind of weird malaise.  No easy answer.  UK gun crime is going through the roof this year.  And a person isn't even allowed to buy a gun here (excpet maybe a shotgun).

Oh, man, what IS the world coming to when I feel like I could vote for Herofix!

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Hero makes some very salient points. Also there are already shetloads of firearms out there all over the world. I can imagine the worldwide black market. There already is one in the US. I had a guy open his trunk to me years ago full of deadly weapons for sale, right in Brooklyn ! Scarry by the way. One wrong turn can put you in the wrong place. I suppose you could offer money for turned in weapons, but come on.

This guy in Virginia only had a 9mm pistol and a 22 cal pistol. That isn't much. He did 30 times the damage in deaths than  2 guys in armor head to toe with several M16s and AR47s , thousands of rounds, did in CA a few years ago!!!    I, however, do think that second deadly round could have been lessened if not prevented. Take action faster and heavy to protect an area in that situation- multiple murder. From what I have read, the response was not good at all.IMO. 2 hours later - yards away --round 2, 15 times worse ? Shouldn't the place have been crawling with LE all over the place? Hero is right though. Something out of left field like that is hard to anticipate for sure. Very Sad. " No easy answer. "      

Right, herofix on the (in)effectiveness of gun/drug control. 

Good people don't need the law and bad people don't obey it.  I just know if the shit hits the fan, I am very well prepared.

To me it's like the Gun-controlled state in the US that has a high gun crime rate...

...the states all around it have guns!!  How hard is it to cross the border and arm yourself?

In Japan, the UK, and other places, I'm sure it's relatively easy to bring weapons into the country, therefore invalidating the laws of the country.

In Australia we have reasonably strong gun laws, but we're also an island making it easier to keep the things out.  Even then, we still get some in circulation.

For these laws to have any effect in the US, they'd have to tighten the laws in all states (ie when hell freezes over), or in the Uk they'd have to talk to the EU and get uniform and strong laws enforced across Europe.  Otherwise the laws will only prove the gun lobby's addage - when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

I believe it's a stupid argument to suggest that because gun control laws can't cut the death toll to zero, and can't prevent 100% of gun attacks, therefore you shouldn't have gun control laws.

My 2 cents.

Ha, Rainbow, I am very poorly prepared. I have an old 12 guage shootgun -full length barrel. If i shot a modern high powdered shell, I fear the barrel might explode. Then a 22 bolt action rifle with a broken firing pin -useless. A pellet carbine. and a BB pistol I used in my living room, when conditions were right- using my paper target trap in my fireplace-an indoor range. Not much of an armory.

I was trained when a Fed agent at Atlanta, Georgia, and turned in my issued sidearm and ID upon leaving the service.

CY, Gun control would have to be worldwide- not just the EU or all the US States, and enforced-a near impossible assignment IMO. Cy, you may very marginally slow a pscho down, but where there is a will, there is a relative, I mean a way.  This young man had his weapon for 5 weeks before he ran amok.

I think we can all agree with Hero " There is no easy answer."

 That is a sign of the End Times.

Well, IMO that is exactly why I could never be elected.  I'd get reamed for blaming a horrible crime on a 'malaise' and saying there were no easy answers.

Peddling easy answers is the #1 trick in the politician's handbook, right?

And just to double-post, I do think there should be some gun control, just like there should be some drug control.  But you can't eliminate these problems with 'hard' tactics.  Maybe you can't eliminate them at all.??

What Herofix said.

Something to at least consider Cybacat : Gun Free zones like V. T. are based on a fantasy-that murderers will follow rules. Whaddaya think, anything to that ?  Asking a question for a constructive discussion at the risk of sounding stupid.

The gunman may have been emboldened by the fact that he would face no armed defense on that campus, confirmed as he saw little or no police on his treck to phase two. Given, I don't have the full details and scenario of the second building but, too bad more of the victims in the second attack couldn't organize an ad hoc defense of some kind a la Flight 93. Perhaps that was not posssible under the circumstances. And I should have reported that gun salesman to police and didn't. That occurred when I was young, pre - Fed days, that is my weak excuse for a self centered reaction to a serious situation. Maybe , at that time I even had an embarrassing -don't be a rat mentality. I was a gafone at that point still.  

Raymond

Do murderers follow rules?

Well, if I'm in the US today and I break up with my girlfriend and get heated about it, I can reach for my gun and kill her.  Maybe I'm still angry, and because I have this particular weapon, I can take out 10, 20, 30 people quite easily - because I have a gun.  Forget the motives or the criminality - because you're right - they'll always be there.

But the tools available, and the ease of their availability, make all the difference.

Gun control will not stop all gun deaths.  It will not stop some criminals getting guns.  BUT - it will reduce the number of gun deaths substantially.  It's up to Americans to decide whether 30,000+ gun shooting victims each year is something to be ashamed of and dealt with, or a reasonable price to pay so that some people can hunt.

Cy, I 'm a target shooter, I don't hunt animals. I don't want to shoot critters, that's just me. I never had to use my pistol with the Feds-it was all questioning, getting records, etc. Investigating- cool out in the field, boring back at the office.

Prohibitions create monstrous powerful criminal organizations, Cy. Figure that in your body count.

Raymond

I think you're right - in an uncivilised society like Rwanda or Zimbabwe, an imbalance of guns in the hands of criminals rather than those who should have them...law enforcement, military, farmers...will create problems.

But in a more civilised, stable country like Australia or the USA, I'd still foresee the body count being less...not more, and have Australia as an example of that.

What is the source for this 30,000, Cyba? Does it remain constant? Do we have ups and downs?

Is that 30,000 MURDERS from guns? 30,000 DEATHS from guns? Does it include suicides, accidental deaths & hunting accidents, cops killing offenders, gang murders?

I am surprised at you, though, casting a collective shame on 300,000,000 people because however many murderers within that figure you keep citing have murdered however many people. It's kinda like blaming 6,000,000 dead Jews on the easy availability of poison gas. Or someone saying Aussies should feel a collective shame for their ancestral connection to criminals. Kind of a loosey goosey connection.

AGAIN, we DO have gun controls in the USA. PLENTY of them. Why do you keep saying things like "gun control won't stop all deaths..." and the like? If you have a well thought out unique plan that no American has been wise enough to envision, why not send it along to the Brady Foundation or any of many interest groups. Maybe there's something they have all overlooked. But in the meantime, do a Wikipedia search of state by state gun restrictions to make sure your master plan doesn't include some "gun controls" already on the books.

Tonight on the new Dennis Miller radio show (which is really quite good) he had on a guest whose name I didn't catch. The man had done a study from the early 1970s through 2000 to determine which gun laws have produced the greatest reduction of crime. He said there was one which made the greatest difference. Right to carry. In areas where people were given right to carry, (I believe that's the term - maybe MothFire could clarify) murder in public places was significantly reduced. A criminal who commits that sort of rampage is going for body count and then expects to die himself. Which is what happens 75% of the time. In a state where the perp doesn't know for sure if his spree is going to be cut short by some gun-toting citizen, it's a deterrent to commission of the crime. Or so the statistics over a 30 year period seem to suggest. He said it amounted to a 1.0 percent difference per year until about 9-10 years after, when applications level off and most who are going to request the permit have already done so.

In California we call it a Concealed Weapon Permit and they are rarely given out. I think I remember hearing only a handful of Los Angelenos have been granted this permit and they have been movie stars. But a really small number as in fewer than 20. If I'm remembering it correctly, Robert Blake may have been one of them. Okay, not the best example but he was exonerated.

I will repeat what I've said many times. Come up with whatever novel gun control laws you like. Institute them. But then arrest criminals and make them serve their full sentences. Mental institutions of some sort might be useful again as well especially if we could have some good ones that are run by sane people. This Virginia killer gave enough signs. In another time he'd have been locked away. Maybe a Frances Farmer treatment. I don't know. Ludovico Treatment?

Do what you can reasonably do within the set of rules a society establishes and still, some bad stuff is going to slip through the cracks. It's just kind of hard to produce a total population of happy shining people who never feel the need to lash out at their fellow travelers.

Susan

PS Stats from the Center for Disease Control on 2004 Death From Firearms. As I thought it does not mean 30,000 murders by gun per year. It is all death by firearm -- intentional/non-intentional; legal intervention; suicide; homocide. You can see that suicide account for more than half of US gun deaths in 2004. Now if you are planning to kill yourself -- and we agree it's one's own right to take one's own life, like Hunter Thompson or Ernest Hemingway, right -- then a gun is pretty fast and pretty certain if you know what you're doing.

Here's the breakdown:

US DEATHS FROM FIREARMS, 2004

29,569 all intents

11,624 homocide

16,750 suicide

649 unintentional

311 legal intervention

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

 At least that's how I always heard it.

Woo Woo Woo!

Susan

Hmmm...I don't remember naming and shaming the 300 million citizens of the US at any point.

My beef is with those who don't acknowledge the country has a gun problem, and/or refuse to do anything about it.

I'm sure there are plenty of level minded Americans who can see the problem and want to do something about it.

I'm sure there are plenty who can see the problem, but see the solution as too hard, or impossible.

But with such high gun death figures - and I don't really care if it's suicides, accidental shootings, murders, dead is dead - I have little respect for those who place greater importance on their love for the sport of hunting over the lives of so many people.  Who argue for more guns, not less - as a solution to gun deaths?!?

I'm sure there was someone on the radio who was spoonfed some random stats from the NRA.  And what they said makes some kind of sense... 

After all, I know on my street if I advertised that I kept guns in the house, or if I kept a pack of pittbulls in my yard, or if I had a moat of crocodiles around the place - I'm going to get less criminal activity at my house because relatively, the other houses are so much easier to rob.  But is the solution then for everyone else to arm themselves to the teeth?  What sort of street would I be living on?

I'd rather the govt stopped the breeding of pitbulls, outlawed crocodile moats in public places, and restricted or banned guns,  It'd make for a nicer street to live in 99.99% of the time.  And on the rare occasion that a criminal did enter my street, chances are he wouldn't have a pitbull, crocodile or gun to assist him...and therefore would be a far less harmful risk to us all.

Did you know that not only is gun ownership strongly prohibited in japan, when america dis-armed it, we took even ceremonial letter openers from them? Im talking total dis-armorment the likes the world has never seen before or since. Really slowed the yakuza down, let me tell you... no violent crime in the heavily populated sliver of an archipelego of japan.
Yeah. that worked. Any more ideas, genius? Oh, it must have been guns coming in from Viet Nam, right? We all now how forgiving and lacadaisical the japanese port authorities are... just let anyone through...

But how did Utopian Australia come to be? never any violence there. Nope. Ask the Aborigines. Everyone is just super nice.
Bloody continent sized Island that has about one person for every 100 acres or so of total land area, and yet there did manage to be some violence, didnt there?

Maybe they should have done psychological testing on all of japan...

I think that history has spoken that outlawing things is a good way to proliferate them.... drugs, maybe? Booze? Prhibition managed to bring in some 20 times more booze than before it. But no, gun control will work.

Worked for the Germans. Not a jew, gypsy, or any non-aryan had a gun at the start of the blitzkrieg. Good thin those gun toting American Farm boys already knew how to fight and shoot when they were pressed into service.

But you know, we can all play the "if I was king" game. I'm sure if everyone just did things your way, we would all be happy, wouldn't we, Mr. Flanders?

firemoth

Yeah - thanks for your history lesson on Australia - back 200 years ago, guns were prevalent, and were used on aborigines often unnecessarily.

I'm glad you use Japan as an example - I'd feel 100 times safer walking down a Japanese street than I would any downtown American street.  You're right - Yakuza do use guns, and I guess if you're a Yakuza, or involved with them in some way, then you have that threat of gun death (and much worse mind you) hanging over your head.

But in America, you don't just fear gangs.  You fear the motorist who you just accidentally banged into, and has a gun in his car.  The nutter down the street who has a gun collection and a few marbles lose.  The disgruntled neighbour who doesn't like what you've done with your garden, is getting increasingly heated and has a shotgun.

So in Japan you fear a 0.0001% of the population who are armed criminals.  In the US you fear the far greater percentage of the population who are armed.  Cultural differences aside, the same old equation remains - more guns, more gun deaths.

Same with Australia - you can walk down the street feeling safe.  Same with Singapore.  Same with New Zealand.  Same with many other progressive nations whose citizens decided it might be a good idea to restrict the sale of tools of mass killing - guns, bombs, missiles, explosives etc.

Is it "Big Brother" to restrict the availability of tools of mass killing?  Well, that's up to you to decide.  Is it "Big Brother" that you can't legally kill someone?  That stealing is illegal?  That you're not allowed to randomly rape people?  Or is that just the law?  ...and is the term "Big Brother" really just thrown in, in place of an actual argument?

Here we go again.

Are you saying your solution is to have more restrictions? Have uniform national restrictions? Or is your plan to ban all future sales? If so, that still leaves us with those remaining 300,000,000 guns -- give or take -- already in circulation. Can't see how that changes your magic equation of more guns = more gun deaths. Is your constant restating of that formula a mere observation and not meant to suggest that you have the foggiest notion of how to fix it? 

Excuse me for observing the over-simplification of the complex. It's almost like... pardon the implication ... the glib reductionism of a politician's stump speech on how he/she'll reduce violent crime. Then when elected nothing much changes and the same politician blames it on the opposing party, who, as you know, LOVES violent crime, while the other party tries its damnest to eliminate it once and for all. Who falls for that?

But I am still waiting for the Master Plan to Reeducate Gun Crazed Americans -- the solution of how to wrest away the 300,000,000 guns from the hands of everyone (save farmers and law enforcement).

After acknowledging the unlikelihood of this EVER happening, what's your solution to that imperfection? Or is it a Secret Plan?

Your long vacant pause on this question leads me to believe that you do not have the slightest clue how to reach that end, Cyba.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Maybe old psychos girlfriend also has a gun. And maybe, just maybe shes faster than him. Or maybe he brains her with a frying pan. (oh, wait, never mind... I've never seen that, this sort of thing doesn't happen) and shes the only one who gets it. But her life isnt a tragic loss unless its accompanied by a whole lot more, right?
And perhaps Joe jack ass with the gun goes out into the world, and armed world, and experiances immediate consequences for his continued actions. Or maybe the world is disarmed, and he runs rampant like some tyrant, killing like mad.

And maybe, just maybe, we should stop throwing around that 30k statistic, since your not indicating where you got it from.

And lets drop the hunting thing... lets focus on what we are talking about. Killing people.

I'm talking about citizens armed for the contingency that they might have to kill another human being in self defense... not carrying guns around just in case they suddenly have to take a trophy buck.

And then lets look at U.S. gun laws. Is it possible, sparky, that there might be a few THOUSAND people or more in the U.S. that have implemented gun laws in municipalities, states, and even the whole nation AND THEY FAILED? Is it just possible that maybe your not some prodigy that was the first person this ever occurred to?
And is it possible that the anti gun lobby is losing steam because after well over 100 years, even where they were allowed to have their way, they have failed?

But I'm sure you carefully researched this. I'm sure your totally informed about the relationship hunting has to gun violence of any sort towards human beings in the U.S. No way you'd fire off the hip at hunters without any background information on how much FIRE ARMS SAFETY PROGRAMS, CONSERVATION OF LAND AND ANIMALS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND SURVEYING are dependent on the American hunting community.

I think we should establish a new rule about you posting, Cyba: IF you spout a statistic, I want you to sight sources, and validate the statistic. I want to see how in your mind a world bereft of fire arms like the one our primitive fore bears lived in would be free of grisly violence. (All students of history know there were no staggering slaughters, and horrifying wars before guns existed)> I want to see where you show us all that the advancement of small arms has coincided with an increase of violence as a percentage of population growth. Obviously, I think that cracking a high school history book can illuminate why i think your wrong, but go ahead, prove it to us.

Cybacat, not looking for a fight,  just for discussion and something to at least consider whatever one's well meant feelings are:

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people.  ( we all agree)

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the  economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.
Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the  "Gun-Free School Zone" laws. ( an opinion, but a reasonable one)

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone? ( using sarcasm as a tool, not to offend my other citizens)

(See study by Lott and Landes-google) of course not everyone is in complete agreement with the study , but we can discuss it, right ? WE all want the same goal my friends -less carnage from V T type incidents-on that we can agree as a starting point. Remember we all have the same goal. 

Firemoth

Maybe old psychos girlfriend also has a gun. And maybe, just maybe shes faster than him. Or maybe he brains her with a frying pan. (oh, wait, never mind... I've never seen that, this sort of thing doesn't happen) and shes the only one who gets it. But her life isnt a tragic loss unless its accompanied by a whole lot more, right?

What value does a frying pan have?  Oh - it's used for cooking food in virtually every house in the US.  Does it's benefit to society outweigh the potential risk that someone may use it as a weapon?  Yes.  And guns - remind me again what they're used for in the day to day life of an American citizen?

And maybe, just maybe, we should stop throwing around that 30k statistic, since your not indicating where you got it from.

Sorry - I didn't realise I was the only one with access to Google.  The 30,000 figure has been repeated in all modes of press over here - paper, radio, TV - and remains undisputed by both sides of the debate in Australia.

Figures from 2001, and some interesting observations:

http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html

"Here is the price that ordinary Americans are paying for the privilege

- 8 children a day die in murders, suicides and accidents involving guns

- since John F. Kennedy was assinated more Americans have died from gunshot wounds at home than died in all the wars of the 20th century

- Osama bin Laden would need at least nine twin towers like attacks each year to equal what Americans do to themselves every year with guns.

- Murder rates in LA, NY and Chigago were approaching the hightest in the world (30 per 100,000) until moves were made in late 20th century to restrict access to guns to teenagers. (The NRA wants these moves reversed)

If Osama bin Laden had had more sense, instead of launching a terrorist attack, he would simply have provided financial backing to the NRA."

As referred to, these statistics come from the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention:

http://www.cdc.gov/

And lets drop the hunting thing... lets focus on what we are talking about. Killing people.

When I lived in the US, most people had guns for hunting.  There were a few I knew who carried one for self defence, but the vast majority were for hunting.  In fact I was so fascinated by it, I interviewed all my classmates and wrote a paper on it!  The average number of guns per home was up near 10.  So hunting is the relevant comparison point - does someone's recreational hunting come before the lives of 30,000 Americans?

In 1991, there were 38,317

Source:  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032378.htm

A total of 28,663 people died from firearms in 2000.

Source:  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00032378.htm

In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States.   30,625 in 1998. 

Source:http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/01facts/99mortality.htm

Is it possible, sparky, that there might be a few THOUSAND people or more in the U.S. that have implemented gun laws in municipalities, states, and even the whole nation AND THEY FAILED?

I've covered that.  No point implementing restrictions when all the areas around have weaker restrictions.  Let me know when a strict, enforced, National gun restriction regime is attempted and failed.  Hasn't been done yet...sparky.

Is it just possible that maybe your not some prodigy that was the first person this ever occurred to?

Clearly not.  In fact I'd say the majority of people outside the US are like me - shaking their heads in amazement at how you got yourselves in this mess!  Not only that, but the complete failure of your democratic system to prevent such tragedy - when 1 noisy, cashed-up lobby group can protect their hobby with such vigour that rarely will a politician dare to stand up and speak against these unnecessary deaths...for fear of being "shot down" figuratively...

And is it possible that the anti gun lobby is losing steam because after well over 100 years, even where they were allowed to have their way, they have failed?

Ummm...not sure which country you live in dude - I thought you were American.  That's the country where the NRA has been running the agenda since time began.  The anti-gun/pro-life lobby may have had a few scraps thrown their way over the years, but to even pretend they've been "having their way" is dishonest to the point where I know you weren't being serious.

Regarding your rant against hunters, I used to be one.  Yes I know many/most are the salt of the earth - great people, who share a common hobby that's a lot of fun.  I've hunted deer, doves, razorbacks, roos - absolutely love the sport.  The most passionate conservationist I know is also a hunter, and a good mate in the US.  So again, don't go off on a tangent here - I have no beef with hunters.  I just ask the question - is the right of people to enjoy their sport of hunting worth the cost of 30,000 dead Americans each year?  Yes or No?  Maybe you think it is...but at least Americans should be allowed to openly have that discussion without being booed or shouted down for daring to ask a question.

I think we should establish a new rule about you posting, Cyba: IF you spout a statistic, I want you to sight sources, and validate the statistic.

Sure - and how about this for an idea??  If I quote the national gun death figures as 30,000 and you disagree, how about YOU post what YOU think is the actual statistic!  Visit nra.org, and dig up whatever you like and post it here.

I want to see how in your mind a world bereft of fire arms like the one our primitive fore bears lived in would be free of grisly violence.

Easy - just look to most modern nations who have greatly restricted firearm availability.  Less guns=less gun deaths...period.  Need an example?  Australia - we implemented tough restrictions, and have halveed the number of gun deaths each year.  Not fantasyland, not pie-in-the-sky, just people sick of gun deaths, and democractic govt with the balls to implement change:

Source:  http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502 

I have the right to bear arms.  Nukes are arms - why aren't Americans allowed to have those in the home? 

Raymond

Go back to my previous analogy of a street.  If 1 house has an alarm system, the other houses are more vulnerable.  If they all get alarms, and 1 house gets a pitbull, then again he'll be less vulnerable.  If they all get alarms and pitbulls, but 1 house has a moat filled with crocs, then again it will be least vulnerable.  Then they start getting guns...and so on.

If you're a crim in an area where people are now allowed to carry concealed weapons, is there any wonder that they would leave to another area to commit their crime, and you'd get a reduction in the local crime rate?  Not really.  But you're still going to get the dead people...just in another area.

Local tests and results are completely irrelevant imho.  The only solution that will work is a national one.

"Sparky", FireMoth? I agree with cyba on almost nothing, but as far as I'm concerned that's just demeaning, and not nearly as clever as you mean it to be. It's not as offensive as your final paragraph, but it's getting there.

We talk about a lot of stuff around here, and nobody is going to have a problem with you expressing the actual content of the opinions you've expressed. I'm hoping you'll take a fresh look at the How part. Sorry if that's a lousy "hello".

Anyway,

I read something along the lines of "Congress may restrict sales of firearms to people with history of mental illness" somewhere, and prayed in my irreligious way that this isn't a new idea someone just came up with... In other words, are we seeing legislation problems or enforcement problems when someone who obviously isn't emotionally or intellectually equipped to be trusted with firearms manages to buy them anyway? (I'm speaking of the US now, though I know we're off-topic a bit; this question would be interesting in respect of other countries too.).

I'm outside of the American gun distribution system, so I have no experience with it. I know that the specifics of the legal rights to own and use guns can differ from state to state, but who currently governs over the ability to purchase a gun? (I know I could wiki this, but it'll be more interesting to get answers here.)

(I know, , but I'm a bad person.)