Sweeping bans on the guns themselves sends a message that individual interventions don't. The message is "We as a society don't approve of civilians having easy

Sweeping bans on the guns themselves sends a message that individual interventions don't. The message is "We as a society don't approve of civilians having easy access to death machines." But this message falls on deaf ears when the message of the gun owners is "We want the ability to fight our government." They're in direct conflict. Gun advocates always say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To me that means only one thing. We don't need gun control: We need people control. If you own a gun, you should be subject to scrutiny and harsh penalties for not being a responsible gun owner, the same way we impose harsh penalties on the safety and use of automobiles. If you keep your gun unlocked and not in a safe, there should be a penalty. If a child can get to your gun, there should be quite an intense penalty. If you have or develop a history of mental illness, or commit a felony, you should not be allowed to have any guns. And carrying said weapons, unlocked, and armed, "for defense", when that defense is not "defense from a repressive and illegal government incursion", should be outlawed. Yes, only the outlaws will have guns. Just like only the outlaws commit murder, and do a whole lot of shit they shouldn't do. This does not mean outlaws will run rampant shooting people, because most people already do not carry guns, and most people who carry guns are not constantly defending themselves from assailants. It's a stupid argument to say that because an outlaw has one, a civilian needs one. SWAT teams need them, but not your uncle who wears fatigues to a barbeque.