Nationalized gun control laws?

A member of the somthingawful.com gun forums posed this question and I put together this reply. In regards to the idea of a nationalized gun law reform, here are my thoughts:

Pro:

For most Americans, this sounds like a good idea. The media does and excellent job of keeping the public paranoid about the realities of violence in this world. The entire life cycle for most Americans is based on the idea that America is some kind of utopia and that people should and will be protected by the government from the darker realities of modern life. That being said, most Americans would like the sound of a nationwide policy that unified gun laws that would likely be extremely close to revoking the very statute of civilian gun ownership. This fundamental right is a relic of a more dangerous time when there was widespread danger and lawlessness throughout the vast expanse of the emerging American territories. The idea that an American civilian militia would assemble to stand up to a domestic threat is unlikely. [Though I personally don't discount the possibility if the right wrong circumstances manifested).

The incongruence of gun laws between states is alarming. For example in California, one of a few states that are unabashedly aggressive on gun control legislation (also NY, NJ, OR, MA). There are various situations in while one citizen 30 miles from another could have access to many different types of firearms and different licensing and background check policies. I would be surprised if there are few other industries with such irregular government intervention from locality to locality. In one state a person could buy military grade 50 caliber slong range sniper rifle with the enough power to damage or disable light aircraft, where in some cities (NYC,DC, and formerly proposed in SF) even the most basic firearms (inexpensive, small caliber handguns) have been prohibited.

Also, with respect to gun rights in the rest of the western world, it is unlikely any country aside America own more firearms per capita. In most places in America there are few regulations that would prevent each and every citizen of of age 18 or 21 (sometimes handgun are limited to civilians in good standing 21 and over) to own vast personal arsenals. These unmitigated freedoms could pose a threat to national security in times of civil strife or national/regional disaster.

Since the early days of flintlock technology; striker, powder, ball and packing guns have been used are arbitrator in interpersonal disputes between gentlemen and scoundrel alike. The gun cannot be undone as a widespread tool, but their should be common sense regulations limiting the access to and keeping tabs on inventories of these devices. Guns may not independently cause crime, though it's hard to argue that the inherent inequity in scenarios between armed and unarmed persons, guns can make it easier to commit a crime. Philosophically speaking, if we are to look at this situation as a whole society and turn a blind eye to individual freedoms, it is hard to deny that guns pose considerable danger to the society's ability (gov't's) to maintain order and anticipate organized threats to the security of it's citizens. For the good of the many, there should be strict and responsible oversight by the gov't of firearm ownership.

Con:

Our forefathers vision for our self improving democracy included the basic statute that American citizens have the basic right to use deadly force against perceived threats to their personal security. Some obvious reasoning for this is the sometimes dangerous and unsure nature of everyday life in the 18th century. Americans faced established native populations, the looming threat of European colonial interests and military aggression, various everyday uses, animal hunting and trapping, etc. Who are we to think that this basic provision of American citizenship is limited to "way back when". Certainly our forefathers insisted that the citizenry should not be bound by a fear of the government's monopoly on the use of force.
of American sportsmen (and women) and the ubiquitous pride from this voacl segment
I don't imagine that you will have a problem making an argument for the freedomsof the community.

The idea of controlling access to guns is a natural extension of the governments implied (but not legally obligated)responsibility to protect people from harm. Depending on where you may live is likely an indicator for how likely this protecting is when you'd need it.

The author of Freakenomics (Steven Dubner?) says that the danger of legal civilian gun ownership, as indicated by the annual number of gun accident deaths per capita is actually lower than the per capita deaths by drowning in a swimming pool. Thus one can make the argument that there should be a vast and consolidated effort to outlaw or at least strengthen the gov't national laws on the ownership and operation of swimming pools and spas.

The actual data for the incidences of gun violence by law abiding citizens whom have obtained and operate their 100+ million registered firearms are far lower than deaths related alcohol and automotive accidents. The villification (is that a word?) of guns as a looming threat to our children's safety is a result of the shocking and sudden violence (read: newsworthyness) of the crimes. These crimes could likely be linked to guns that are obtained illegally, though some of these weapons used in violent crime were formerly legal guns.

The idea that the guns are a root cause of violence in society today is on shaky philosophical ground, although it is an unarguable fact that guns are used in many ghastly crimes. The old idea that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" still true. By vast majority, behind every horrendous act of gun violence is a motive to commit this crime in question.

The government, either state or federal, has been encroaching on the 2nd amendment rights of Americans for decades. The larger national policy as an initiative to unify state level regulations would involve increased regulation fees and annual taxes (in the form of annual registration stickers, and probably with RFID tech). This would fund new methods of tracking and new ways to coordinate the tracking of firearms and the comings and going of lawful gun owners. Depending on the specific provisions of such hypothetical legislation and implementation, this could pose Constitutional trespasses to rights regarding search and seizure and basic privacy provisions.