Is banning guns really the answer?

Ban swimming pools.

Ban alcohol (in case children are born with fetal alcohol syndrome)
Ban tobacco (second-hand smoke is bad for children)
Ban playgrounds (possible paedo magnets)
Ban sports in schools (not allowed to lose or win anymore)
Ban fast or junk food unless below certain calorie count per 100g (risk of obesity)
Ban Drive-thru's (pollution from idling vehicles)
Ban all but electric or hybrid vehicles (pollution along roadways
Ban TV 9people can sit together as families instead of being babysit by the idiot box)

We can ban a shedload of things with a little reasoning, but we won't. There's a rational argument on both sides, but it's hijacked by extremists on both sides.

Agreed.

Who said ban guns, even Piers Morgan who's getting slaughtered by the pro gun lobby has not said to ban guns.

The problem in the US is that anybody can get a gun and any type of gun.

Add to this the lack of a public health system where anyone with mental problems are left to fend for themselves unless of course they hurt someone, then they are evil.

It's obvious to all but the blind that tighter controls are required on who can have guns and what type of guns.

I'm generally fairly libertarian. I don't think any activity should be illegal unless pursuing that activity necessarily does direct harm to people who have not chosen to participate. I'm not, for example, supportive of smoking bans, in buildings, in cars, anywhere, as the case for damage through second-hand smoke is a bit wobbly. I don't support helmet laws, feel free to fall off your Harley and smash your head in.

Guns aren't comparable though. Hand guns, (semi-)automatic rifles, machine guns, heavier ordnance, if used properly according to the maker's instructions will kill people other than the operator of the device. There's no other use for these machines. We may reasonably assume that the dead don't consent to be so. Accordingly, there's no case for such machinery being in private hands.

I think this is a bit of a slur on the US. There's no help for nutters in Canada and, I imagine, very little in the UK. It may be that there are more dangerously mad people in the US because there are more people in the US but the system (if "system" it be) isn't worse in this regard.

I agree with you. My list was a failed attempt at humour

Maybe it's more to do with 'nutters' having much easier access to someone else's firearms in the US?

There's no good case for such machinery being in governments' hands, either. The US Constitutional "right to bear arms" was enacted in order to allow the populace to protect itself against tyranny, including tyrannical governments. Such as the British government of the late 1700s, AND such as any future government. The US currently has an increasingly tyrannical government. Case proven.

If I lived in the USA, I would not be overjoyed to know that my neighbour had a gun in his home, but I would not be happy that policemen had guns either. If a posse of policemen invaded my home in the mistaken belief that I was a Bad Guy, and they killed me, there would be virtually no redress. They would know that. If my neighbour killed me for whatever reason, he would go to jail for life, and maybe executed. He would know that. So whom should I fear most?

Those of us who don't blindly follow everything we've been told.

Beneath this mask is an idea, Mr Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof!

Oops, sorry!

I assume this is another failed attempt at humour.

Anyone with a gun.... maniacs, potential maniacs, police officers or military personnel

No problem sir! I blatantly breached rule 83 regarding the correct use of smileys

So whom should I fear most?
Psychopaths, above all. Most are either in parliament or in uniform just following orders; most of their victims are sub-human foreign scum thousands of miles away.
(That is an attempt at black humour, dbd. How'd it work out?)