[RyanMcGreal]

Gun control in the US can start with control of those types of firearms most likely to be used in mass shootings: automatic and semi-automatic weapons with magazines that accommodate large numbers of rounds. The US can do what other countries have done successfully: ban sales, restrict ownership, and offer amnesty/buyback for weapons already in circulation.

The US can also mandate safe storage of weapons and ammunition in separate, locked, secure cases. That in itself would reduce the incidence of gun suicide and so-called crimes of passion by introducing a long-enough delay between decision and action that sanity prevails.

[hga]

And the fact that "the US" (I assume the Federal government) trying to do this now, before changing the culture (see Holder's 1995 remarks on "brainwashing") would spark a civil war is ... a minor detail?

Unless by "restrict ownership" you mean, say, the same as the current policy for handguns, can't buy unless you're 21? Can be gifted with one, though.

"Lock up your safety" (so called "safe storage") is off the table per the Supreme Court. D.C. insisted on that sort of insanity and got slapped down in Heller, the state must allow guns to be readily available for self-defense.

[RyanMcGreal]

I don't think a real commitment to gun control would spark a civil war. So far, the paranoid right-wing tough talk has not coalesced into anything like a real movement, let alone a rebellion, despite the widespread belief among a certain segment of Americans that the president is a radical Muslim, foreign-born Manchurian candidate determined to turn American by stealth into a socialist dictatorship.

Then again, I might be wrong about the civil war bit. It's possible that America is simply culturally incapable of regulating its firearms in a safe, responsible way, and that a death-by-firearms rate several orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the industrialized world is an intractable side-effect.

[hga]

"Then again, I might be wrong about the civil war bit."

Given that, if you live in the US, it's a "you bet your life" proposition, you'd best be very careful before possibly sparking one, no matter how low a probability you think it is from people you've shown yourself to know nothing about. And you're definitely limited in your imagination, we've watched recent history and know "real movements" as such aren't an option (at least in the beginning). Fortunately they're not needed.

You would also do well to remember a couple of quotes misattributed to Imperial Japanese Navy Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku, the architect of their attack on Pearl Harbor:

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

[RyanMcGreal]

I don't live in the USA, but I live close enough to it to pay attention to what's going on. I know the difference between the relentless bombast of right-wing propaganda and what most people are actually like.

As for the risk of people dying if something is done: we know for certain that people will continue to die from gun violence by the thousands on an annual basis if something is not done.

[hga]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=threeper