For goodness sake, no one is talking about banning guns! Why is it that any time anyone tries to have a sensible debate about what kinds of guns the average citizen actually needs and what we can do to ensure that guns don't fall into violent hands, people start *****ing that we are trying to ban guns and destroy freedom? You do not need an automatic weapon to hunt or to defend yourself against a home intruder.

Yes, car accidents kill people. That's why we have drivers licenses and speed limits and traffic laws.

Yes, knives kill people. But no one has every committed a mass stabbing. And knives, unlike guns, are not used solely for the purpose of killing.

As an Australian can someone explain to me the rational behind having semi automatic weapons available legally?

And knives not being the culprit behind mass murder? Have you heard of a small-ish continent sometimes known as Africa? Look it up.

How about bows? Should we heavily regulate all those murderous wannabe Robin Hoods?

How many arrows a minute does a bow fire? And how many knives a minute can one man throw, assuming we're talking distance-killing? How accurate and how fast are those weapons, and how often are the wounds inflicted fatal? How much chance does an intended victim have to save him or her self? The difference is obvious, unless one is being deliberately obtuse.

Your definition re. Africa is flawed - a mass murder in the context we're talking about is one or two aggressors against a large number of victims, not an entire continent engaged at various times in internecine war with itself.

If you're going to quote the constitution, use it in context:

"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."

So to what part of being "a well regulated militia" does an individual owning a firearm belong?

Surely the US Army is your country's well-regulated militia and unless you are a member of the armed forces, why should you have any right to keep and bear arms? Are you intending to rise-up and enact a coup d'etat?

Just because someone has the right to do something, doesn't mean they have to automatically exercise that right.

And saying I don't understand or cannot imagine why leaves plenty room for debate, because what I am asking for then is an explanation to help me comprehend.

Ultimately, I believe there is a fundamental difference in the psyche between peoples of different nations and in the US gun ownership is as normal as owning a powertool, a washing machine or a motorcar. But I also think that the normality of owning a item designed exclusively as a weapon somehow blurs the edges of one's ability to reason. In a fugue or disturbed state of mind, you might imagine getting a gun and setting the world to right. The difference is, in the US, you have access to firearms and so making the leap from wishful thinking to reality is all too horrifically easy.

Changing beliefs that are so inherent, so entrenched, is not an easy task, but it can de done. That may require some high-level (statutory) intervention initially, but if it is for the greater good, then so be it.

There's no reason any citizen needs to own an assault rifle. There just isn't.

Deer don't wear Kevlar.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership. I'm just a rational person is all. I don't think people should be prohibited from owning a pistol, shotgun, even a hunting rifle.

But the weapon that guy used was a damn hand cannon.

And if you want to bring up the Constitution...they had muskets back then. You had to pour gun powder and jam a ball down in between each shot which more often than not missed and wasn't anywhere near as lethal as today's weapons.

You show Thomas Jefferson the gun used at that school and he'd quickly put a big f'ing asterisk next to that second amendment.