How can we regulate guns ... ?

So, I have been following along with this thread for its entirety and I am also still not convinced of a few things:A. That a reduction in gun availability will reduce overall homicide, which should be the goal. It should not be simply to move violent crime from one method to another.B. That more regulation, rather than enforcing current regulations, will have any more effect on the violent nature of AmericansC. That the violence in 'Merica is caused by gun availability, rather than a variety of socio-economic factors and institutional factors.In other words, I think that adding more restrictions and regulations will not have the beneficial effect that we all want to see. I think that curing the symptom of something is ridiculous and we should rather search for the underlying cause of the violence that exists in our culture. I have been reading the article, Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment by Don B. Kates Jr. He brings up some very interesting points that are being overlooked in the comparisons between the US and other nations as well as statistics that apply simply to changes in the gun laws within the US. (This report is from 1990, so please take that as you will)The first point that he mentions that I have already stated is that the violence in America is far more connected with our socio-cultural and institutional systems. In fact, the US has a higher homicide rate, regardless of weaponry than the nations it is normally compared with. In the other gun thread, I posted the number of knife homicides for both the US and the UK, showing that the US is also higher in this regard Message 1118Another point that is raised by this study is that there is little consistency when trying to compare different nations. This can be attributed to the different socio-economic factors for the nations. For example, the US is always compared to Britain or Australia who have low gun ownership and low gun crime. However, it is generally left out that three countries with high gun ownership sit right around the same area, Israel, New Zealand, and Switzerland. This messes with the correlation because high gun ownership should equal high gun crime, but in these cases it does not.Likewise, Two countries with severely restrictive gun laws are Taiwan and South Africa. Yet, both of these countries have a high violent crime rate which does not fit in with the statistics that are being thrown around.Another point that is brought up in this paper is that it is somewhat ridiculous to look at the UK for how a gun ban would change the US. The US traditionally has a history of violence, whereas low European violence rates long preceded the gun bans that were implemented. It is not a fair comparison to assume that the US would drastically reduce, when the UK did not drastically reduce, but rather continued a reduction.One point the paper makes is simply using the US as its own comparison. Throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's gun ownership went up consistently. However, gun crime increased mainly during the 60's with reductions happening throughout the 70's and 80's.One final point that I would like to make from the report deals with the overall homicide rate. Kates states, "In 1974, the American rate was 40 times the English. 15 years (and 30 million more American handguns) later, the American rate is only 10 times as great." How can the prevalence of guns increase without this correlation that is being claimed to exist? If gun ownership consistently correlates with homicide, then how can America not be increasing its differential between it and the UK while it increase the number of guns owned?Again, I am not advocating for rampant freedom to do whatever with guns, but rather I think that we must look for a real solution. CS has been constantly stating that Mental Health should be a key debate topic and I fully agree, we must prevent those afflicted from getting guns. Also, we need to begin to look at the economic disparity that causes a lot of gun crime to happen within the inner cities of 'Merica. Finally, we must begin to give the ATF some teeth again so that currently existing regulations can actually be enforced.As far as new regulations that actually might make a difference, I would be in favor of three new additions:1 - Universal background checks. I am amazed that any joe schmo can sell anyone a rifle privately without checking a background. The database should be available for private sellers. No information need be given to the seller other than sell or do not sell.2 - Mandatory Gun Registration. This is stupid that owners do not need to register weapons. First, gun owners always state that the government will get guns registered and then confiscate. However, they also say "They can have my guns when they pry them out of my cold dead hands." Well, so the confiscation would never happen...at least not while the gun owner is alive. They would plan on fighting against that breach of their rights.3 - Mandatory Gun Safe Registration before being allowed to purchase firearms. I think that this would cut down on the amount of stolen guns that make their way into the US system each year because owners would be forced to have a responsible way to store them. Plus, knowing that they should have stored the guns properly, law enforcement can hold the individual liable for crimes committed with his or her guns that should have been properly stored.Reference:
Gun Control: A Realistic Assessment

Faith, although I know you do not trust Wikipedia, because the filthy liberals () have gotten hold of it, but it does not agree with your statement that the Nazis made a confiscation effort (except from the Jews), nor do many other sites.The first gun laws that were placed on the books in Germany actually took place after the First World War, far before the Nazis came to power. After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany enacted the Regulations on Weapons Ownership in 1919. This law declared that: However, this law was enacted by the Weimar Republic, not by the Nazis and this is the exact strict gun laws that you are speaking of.The next law that was passed was in 1920 and was entitles the Law on Disarmament of the People. This law simply put the laws required by the Treaty of Versailles into effect.The next law that was passed was in 1928 and was called the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This was the first reduction in the restrictions that had been placed on firearms in Germany after World War I. According to the wiki, this law stated that: Seems like the restrictions are becoming less and less and guess what, we still are not even to the Nazi rise to power which occurred in 1933. So, these strict laws (which were loosened as time progressed) were not Nazi laws, so what exactly did the Nazis do when it came to gun controlIn 1938, the Germans passed the 1938 German Weapons Act. This new law, created by the Nazi Regime, superseded the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. However, opposite of your claim, this law relaxed the restrictions on guns even more. According to the Wiki: So, it appears that the Germans had more gun rights under the Nazis than they did under the previous regime. In fact, rifles and shotguns did not even require a permit! The one stipulation was that Jewish individuals were not allowed to possess weapons, which was because the process of blaming them for all German problems was under way. However, where were these upstanding armed German citizens when the regime began to take their friends and neighbors away? It seems like it was not gun control which led to genocide. Rather, a large effort of getting a country to fall for group think and utilizing propaganda to control the hearts and minds of a people that had been forced into submission and a feeling of weakness with the previous treaty they had signed.References:
Gun control in Germany - Wikipedia
The Hitler gun control lie | Salon.com

Well, that was unnecessary. Maybe I forgot to mention (but I swear I did) that the Gun Law if 1938 repealed the previous laws that were put in place by the Weimar Republic. Hitler could no longer utilize those laws. The only individuals guns were confiscated from were the Jewish people. You posted one video that I could actually check and links to books I have no intention of purchasing simply to verify your statements. I definitely did not slander you and I apologize if it came out that way. However, as far as the evidence I have seen, you seem to be wrong. When only one group is shouting something with no agreement from anywhere I become skeptical of the claim and will only trust evidence. I trusted the statements in my evidence more than yours. No offense intended.Still I ask, where were those Non-Jewish Germans with guns when they saw their friends and neighbors taken away? Group think can be an extremely dangerous tool, especially when used how the Nazis used it.