Comparing the United States to Europe or anywhere is else is foolish. Different circumstances, different society, different culture. The United States widely being considered the 'top' country in the world, while also having their hands involved in nearly every military conflict on the globe also makes them a target. Additionally, the United States has a drastically larger population than most individual European countries and several more large-scale cities and also borders more dangerous countries than a majority of Europe. This doesn't begin to address geographic differences and the significantly shorter amount of time that the country of the United States has existed. It's easier for Australians to ban guns, they're an island in the middle of nowhere and have 23 million people total. That's pretty much equivalent to the state of Texas in population.

You can find examples on BOTH sides of this argument. Switzerland has very open gun laws and has virtually no issues. Australia has very strict gun laws and has virtually no issues.

The real issue at work here is simple and straight-forward. Do you as a human being, have the "right", the "freedom" to protect yourself and your family? In my opinion, that's the only question that needs to be asked. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves and should not be denied that. Especially, not by some politicians who are protected themselves by armed guards and their families and children have armed guards watching them at all times.

I legally carry a gun every day. Why? To defend my family and myself. They need to remove the 1993 Clinton ban and let solders carry weapons again. Bad people don't usually go for armed people they go for ones that are defenseless. LOL at disarming America. Our culture is all about guns for defense, sporting and hunting purposes. If they could somehow disarm America it would only be good law abiding citizens left without defense.

They'd also need to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.

Not being funny, but geographically, the US is in a near perfect place to avoid fallout from policy etc.

US considered "Top" Country maybe, but that's where the UK was 100 years ago. UK still has it's hand in pretty much every conflict. Won't deny the larger US population but to say you border more dangerous countries than most Eurpean countries is ridiculous. You have oceans protecting you from most of the countries that would be likely to attack.

All I hear here is wah wah I want my gun. Australia's strict gun laws came in for the same reason the UK's did. The result is far fewer mass shootings.

The issue is that the people who do these crimes are the ones with access to the black market. The other portion would be happy using some other effective means like a bomb or a fire. I wonder how many people would've gotten shot by Breivik if at least five percent of the hundred or so on that island had a weapon. I think while gun bans help decrease the number of mass shootings they also increase the  number of deaths per incident.

My argument is that you are telling people to give up large amounts of freedoms for an arguably marginal amount of security. Not that nothing can be done. The end of the war on drugs would reduce much crime in the U.S as an alternative solution, for example.

You must not be familiar with the perpetuating drug wars that have been flowing across the U.S - Mexican border (which originated in Mexico.) Such cartels are responsible for a large number of shootings, either directly or indirectly, in the U.S.  I can't think of an analogous case for much of Western Europe. 

My argument is discussion of the issue, all options on the table, is a far far better way to find a solution, than to insinuate that a 'large amount of freedoms' being given up (Right to bear arms, is actually just 1 freedom) What you just said is hyperbole, and it's also intellectually dishonest, because few American's would ever support an across the board gun ban, let alone the members of the House and Senate actually passing such a measure to amend the Constitution.  It's not going to happen, so let's cut that out, shall we?  It really doesn't move the discussion further.

Besides, there's more here than just guns going on.  There's extremism, there's mental health, there's America's actions abroad, the amount of illegal guns in circulation in the US and I'm sure a plethora more that I'm not thinking of at the moment.  I firmly believe solving this issue will require us to analyze all of these things, and address the holes in policy, enforcement, etc... whereever it is.  But, that's not going to happen if everytime this issue comes up, everyone only voices fear about the Government coming after our guns!  I would like to point out, the Government hasn't, in recent memory (added because I'm not going back throughout history to find it), ever suggested they were going to go door to door to 'take our guns'.

Also, keep in mind, I have 3 guns, but, I'm also open to talking about this issue, because I really don't like seeing things like Newtown, Aurora, Chattanooga etc...

Actually there are corollaries to the "right to bear arms", depending on the purpose of bearing said arms: to hunt, to defend oneself, to collect, etc. So yes, it is indeed, more than one freedom.

I understand that few Americans would ever support such bans. Nevertheless, the continual comparison is with European bans, which are very much unpopular in the U.S. Is that then not dishonest in this dicussion as well?

Certainly they wouldn't say such things. As you noted, the political climate isn't conclusive to it. But certainly if the majority of politicians had a button that could eliminate all non-priveleged guns they would do as such: republicans and democrats alike. Fortunately, such a thing doesn't exist, but there is a great deal of incrementalism that can happen, and that is far more frightening than any outright ban. An interesting tactic, used in recent years is to make the cost of guns and ammunitions expensive, with is not only unegalitarian (poor people don't have the same ability to ownership as affluent) but it is also deceptive.

Most Europeans in this thread are arguing that the U.S should outright ban or make it elaborately difficult to achieve gun ownership. So I really don't see how the opposite argument is out of context.

With that knockout argument you can avoid any comparison between countries if you don't like the result.

Yeah, widely considered as "the top" by US Americans ;)

It's a first world country... why should it be unfair to compare it to other first world countries?

They play world police by own choice.

So what? Then compare the US gun homicides or crime rates to the EU-average.

Canada and Mexico... very dangerous countries. ;)

Middle Europe was the political dividing line between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact in a Cold War for half a century. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo had their wars which could have spread to other European countries. Countries like Syria, Libya, Tunesia and Egypt aren't that far away from Europe either.

By the way... the EU has more large-scale cities than the USA:

9 "million cities" in the US: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas

17 "million cities" in the EU: London, Berlin, Madrid, Rome, Paris, Bukarest, Vienna, Hamburg, Budapest, Warsaw, Barcelona, Munich, Milano, Sofia, Prag, Birmingham, Cologne

The real issue at work here ain't that simple and straight-forward. Do you want to live in a country where the probability to get shot by someone who "only wanted to protect himself" is 10 - 50 times than in other countries... just to keep your right to "bear arms" for the improbable possibility you get attacked someday? Do you want to be responsible for an accidental death caused by your panic? (the article with the 12 year old girl above could have easily shot her own mother or any other who wanted to help her). Where do you draw the line which weapons are still okay for defense and which ones are overkill for mere protection? Don't you have trained authorities to protect you so that you don't have to do it yourself?