Thus far, it looks like there's been some fairly staunch advocates and opponents of extremely strict gun control, thus scaring off all the moderates. So here's me waving the moderates back in hoping that some kind of compromise could be reached which would afford the greatest safety and preservation of rights, etc.
I've also noticed a lot of things said about gun crime and Mexico. I live in Arizona just north of the border, and I'm going to go ahead and offer a local perspective on how that works in this state:
On the border, gun crime is limited to individuals involved in the drug trade. On the Mexican border, various groups are vying for control in the hopes that they can spread their influence in the US, thus making the max profit. The nature of this competition is somewhat violent, and occasionally spills over into the US. Generally, however, it seems that the majority of the violence is in Mexico. The most common crimes on the US side seem to be the ranchers who are unfortunately killed or injured as drug transports run across their land, generally armed. Consequently, there's the occasional gunfight reported in news outlets. From what I've read, it seems that the ranchers who are armed are able to defend themselves more effectively, scaring off their attackers without any serious injury. As a result, I feel that firearms (to a degree) assist ranchers in the protection of their livelihood, as they are isolated.
All these stories about how gun crime in Mexico poses some kind of imminent danger to the metropolitan centers is grossly exaggerated. While the drug trade is a violent thing, it seems self-contained from my perspective, with violence (for the most part) being played out within the characters of the trade itself.
