Good question @Texas Boy. Maybe not, but I for one can genuinely say I've enjoyed following the (mostly) friendly debate here, and I've been informed about views and arguments I wasn't aware of before. Some of you posters are extremely well read!

@Ocean,
Good point I think so too..., I learned a lot of new POV's and gathered new background info.
It is quite interesting and informative, I don't think the/a forum is designed, to change someone ideas or opinions but to exchange information and works as a platform for debate, in which we all see and learn what other people think and see as their right or wrong.

Which both I think doesn't exist.
Everyone is equally right or equally wrong, in the bigger picture.

I have semi changed my mind in that I can understand better laotou's point about having a gun as a preventative for normal citizens in a country where gun control is fragmented (different states, different controls, yet no cross state border searches) resulting in a proliferation of the weapons. However I never feel safe visiting America as I am aware of the gun proliferation.

But I have lived in a country that went through a near "free for all" attitude to gun control to a "highly controlled" attitude - in the response to mass killings at home and abroad. While my father bitterly complained (he owned many rifles for hunting including semi automatics which I was bought up with and used on rabbits/possums/other pests frequently - my family were/are very much in pro gun circles) at the time about increased gun controls (basically he had to have yearly assessments by police/psychologists etc to continue having a semi automatic weapon), he now sees that his country is much safer by the increased control of weapons, has got rid of his semi automatic rifle and has changed more to pro gun control. His reason for getting rid of his semi automatics was that he didn't want them to ever be stolen and fall into the hands of criminals - not something he really ever thought about before, and the onerous requirements of ownership. He now owns 3 rifles .22, .22 magnum and a .308 which he uses for deer, rabbits, pigs and possums (a pest in New Zealand, sorry Aussies!). He now has to keep his weapons in a locked steel vault, the bolts and ammunition in 2 separate locations. Basically he couldn't use the weapons for defence of his property/life, but doesn't feel he would need to as it is highly unlikely now that intruders would be armed and he lives a lot happier life with that knowledge.

When the laws changed to virtually outlaw private ownership of assault weapons/hand guns etc in my country there was a government amnesty where for (I may be wrong) about 2 years illegal weapons could be handed into any police station. After that time ownership of these weapons without the proper licenses (basically you have to be a member of a gun club to gain access to the weapons and even then are constantly assessed by police etc, to fire a weapon requires a well regulated license) would result in jail time and destruction of the weapons. The laws surrounding these weapons make casual ownership of them so onerous, and the punishments so large that owning them becomes too much of a hassle. Added to this the guns are virtually impossible to buy and the societal cues telling you that gun ownership makes you a "crazy", uptake of weapon ownership by young people has dropped dramatically. Go to any rifle club in my country and the owners are generally middle aged men.

The result of the law change stemming from a massacre in 1990 was staggering from a national psyche perspective, particularly those that were pro gun. In a few short years owning a gun designed for offence/defence turned from something "cool and sometimes necessary" to being very very uncool and if you still had one illegally you were looked at as a paranoid psychopath. People felt a LOT safer. Gun violence dropped dramatically. However we do, on occasion, still have gun violence, usually when a weapon has not been secured properly and/or falls into criminal/unstable persons hands or accidental hunting deaths. And there are still quite a few floating around illegally, but that number diminishes every year.

You see, pro gun people, I have lived through an era of tightening gun controls in a democratic free thinking country. The result is NOT doom and gloom, it is quite the opposite. The country prospers as a result through less gun violence and (probably more importantly) a shift in the psyche of people who own guns from a militarized pro gun warmongering type attitudes (I include a few of my relatives in this) to a much more even, clear headed, thinking, peaceful people. Thats why I can see that defending gun ownership based on antiquated notions of defence or irrelevant dissonant arguments shows you are stuck in the same paradigm many in my own country were previously, which makes me sad. So Texas Boy, have I changed my mind? NO!

@Blobbles....
Thanks for the insight and great perspective.
I totally agree, even though I am absolutely Pro gun-control.
There is nothing wrong to have a hunting rifle or sport weapons, bolts and ammo locked seperately seems like a awesome way of avoiding abuse.
I think to hassle gun owners with obstacles might help to really reduce it to who really wants or needs the weapon.
To hassle is probably more effective then all the laws in the world and constant supervision, also I like Chris Rock's approach on "BULLET" control.....I think he is onto something.

Chris Rock:
l think all bullets should cost 5000 dollars.5000 dollars for a bullet. You know why?
'Cause if a bullet costs 5000 dollars, there'd be no more innocent bystanders.
That'd be it.
Every time somebody gets shot, people will be like, "Damn, he must have done something."
"Shit, they put 50,000 dollars worth of bullets in his ass."
And people would think before they killed somebody, if a bullet cost 5000 dollars.
"Man, l would blow your f@$&#ng head off, if l could afford it."
"l'm gonna get me another job, l'm gonna start saving some money... and you're a dead man."

Happy to see that this forum has returned to civil discourse. I'm not so sure that these kind of discussions could ever lead to people changing their minds, but understanding an opposing viewpoint a little better is always healthy. In the States I think we have lost our ability to tackle issues with this kind of understanding. Instead we just feed each other's anger and frustration. If only we could tackle all the big issues like this... taxes, military spending, health care, environmental protection, abortion, "spreading democracy," LGBT rights... Instead it all just becomes reality TV.

@flatus.....I say (an agnostic) amen to that!
I would include Europe (probably most of the world's nation), as well. Not only in the U.S., we have issues dealing with problems/opinions in a civilized productive way.