Although the federal government in the US does have a lot to do with guns and gun control, a great of gun regulation is left up to the individual states, so state laws with respect to gun ownership, licensure, the carrying of concealed or unconcealed weapons, etc., may all come into play. Though guns certainly seem to be more accepted in general in US culture, there is also tremendous variability in the attitudes of people across the country to gun ownership and use. There is a lot of opposition to extremely widespread gun ownership and to the kind of haphazard regulation of guns that we have. That said, we also have lots of people who believe that guns for hunting and sport should be allowed (a position with which I do not quibble),that gun ownership cuts crime, and that permitting the carrying of concealed handguns is a good idea because criminals will "think twice" before assaulting someone.

Although all that’s subject to question, in my view, we also have a strident, egregious, and politically connected gun lobby in the NRA that that does its best to oppose even the most innocuous of regulations -- like allowing a background check on someone purchasing a gun at a gun fair because its “unfair” to make someone wait before slaughtering something; it also urged that a ban on assault weapons — admittedly never terribly effective anyway — to expire, because presumably everyone knows that you need one to liquefy a deer. And this is aside from the real nutcases and the white supremacist lunatic fringe (perhaps less fringe than one would like) who think gun ownership is a divine right, as if Moses had come down from Sinai with ten commandments and an Uzi.

A lot of the US approach to guns springs from the so-called "frontier" mentality, of course, but the second amendment to our Constitution also plays a major part, It reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and Bear arms, shall not be infringed.” What this means has always been unclear. Since the "Miller" case in the 1930’s no federal court had held this meant that individuals had a right to bear arms outside the context of a militia. A case in Texas ("Emerson") in the late 90’s held the opposite, but the case was reversed on appeal and the Supreme Court refused to hear it. This means that the law seems to be back where it was in "Miller," at least for the time being, but I don't think anyone is really sure. This issue is sure to arise again,

From what I have said here, it must be obvious on which side of the debate I stand. I want to state, emphatically, that this does not mean I think all owners of guns or those who defend gun ownership are members of the lunatic fringe, or that membership in a gun lobby (even the NRA) puts you there. My father was for many years an enthusiastic hunter until he gave that up for animal observation, which I think he ultimately found more rewarding. But there were always a couple of Browning automatics in the bedroom closet,and I learned to use them. I never regarded my father or the men (and women) who hunted with him as lunatics. I just don't like guns or being around them, although I recognize they can be mighty useful in some circumsatnces.

I wish the US as a whole were less gun-crazy, but reasonable people may differ.

Lee