Actually, if anyone's points about American gun control are moot, I'm doubting it would be the American's, but that's neither here nor there. The solutions that you personally are proposing do not satisfy the constraints of the problem. But we'll just pretend you didn't undercut yourself yet again.
That's not a really good way to view things. Getting a view from the outside can oftentimes solve problems that cannot if only viewed from the inside. So your point being moot isn't because or despite you being an American but just because it was.
In a nutshell, you want a system that doesn't allow children, nutjobs and criminals to own/use guns. I'm fine with that. You're proposing to accomplish that thru laws. It's already illegal for children, the clinically troubled, and convicted felons to own guns. (In the case of children, they can't own their own and they can't use someone else's without adult supervision.) Congratulations. Your proposal to fix our problems is to install exactly what we already have, which you are quite convinced (and we agree on this) does not work. Do you understand why I might find it hard to take you seriously?
edit- now, if you came in with a plan to actually enforce the laws already on the books, or a plan to be more rigorous about weeding out nutjobs and criminals, or a plan to mandate the use of biometric gun safes (although even that's not a 100% solution), then we might have something to discuss. So far, you've only managed to propose something we already have and complain about the way I think.
Apart from the fact that you have ignored my entire posting again, you seem to be right on some points. But anyway, you are not really answering any of my questions at all nor are you replying to any of the points I made. I even requoted my post. Apparently all you see is that I said that I thought gun control was necessary (which you agree with anyway).
So unless you are going to address the points I made or questions I posed, then I see no reason to continue this discussion. I'm not saying that to be antagonistic, just that I do not see the point in reposting something a multitude of times.
I'll do it again in short, so you can actually see what my points were:
1.
I think that having too many guns available will result in more gun crime by the numbers game.
10 guns on the street mean ten people can harm people, 100 guns on the street mean 100 people can harm people.
2. (The on point you picked on)
Guns serve a purpose to defend oneself and I understand that, but I think that they need to be very restricted to people who can actually use them and are sure to make them safe. I do not know enough about the current laws in the US, but I do know these restrictions need to be quite strict and should include many classes in the usage of them as well as the mental state of the buyer (why does he/she need a gun ?)
3. (The questions)
The problem comes when a child can get a hold of a gun, or in this case a 20-year old or so manages to get a gun from his mother. Some things need to be reviewed, don't you think ? What happened ? How could that person get ahold of someone else's gun ? Was it badly secured ? Do people need to be audited for guns, just like for taxes maybe, with periodic checks that the guns are safely locked away ? Is it worth having the right to own automatic weapons ? I am not saying they shouldn't do this or should do this, but the point is that Americans should pose these questions and more to themselves and find answers they are comfortable with.
4. (The end point of that post)
Yes, yes, criminals can get ahold of guns, just as they can get drugs. That's not the point. Does that mean that we should just stop having police officers in the US since they can't stop all crimes ? No, of course not, but they help. Just as good gun control could help the situation with guns.
So the end point was that the gun control in the US is bad, like you realised I was saying. The point is that to figure out what good gun control is, you need to review the current laws and try something new. How to do this is to ask how these people who are committing crimes with legally owned guns are getting their hands on them ? Were there some signs that could have been picked on that they could have acted this way ? Does that mean that the current evaluation system is bad ? Or is it the type of guns that make things riskier ?
In my opinion, there is no point in having guns that can shoot 30 bullets in 3 seconds. So one easy way to reduce these killings is to not sell automatic weapons to people. Another way to help would be to have gun controls, just like audits that check people's guns are secured in a safe. Another way would be to adopt biometric guns. This would ensure no one could fire the gun but the owners. This would have made sure the son could not have shot his mom for example even if he did get into the safe somehow.
These are ideas. Not put in stone laws I'm proposing. You seem to just be shooting down everything because "they" want to ban all guns. So except for the fact that "they" are politicians and are lying about everything anyway, all you're doing is not coming up with a solution nor are you helping out.
But oh well. I hope you finally do respond to my post instead of just saying that you're an American so you would know better what is good for Americans or something like that.