Are opinions on guns really divided along generational lines though? I mean going from my experience on Reddit, any time someone even suggests the U.S. should restrict gun ownership, that person gets a dozen or so upvoted replies reminding them that God gave Moses the 2nd Amendment on Mt Sinai. I find it hard to believe those are all baby boomers.

The gun debate never uses rational language on either side. For or against regulation, you hate America.

If you believe, as I do, the 2A is rooted in codifying the ability to take up arms against an oppressive (gun-restricting) government, as had just been done a few years prior, you're out of touch. If you believe in gun ownership for protection, you're going to accidentally shoot your child. If you believe all guns are bad, you're point of view is to be enforced at the business-end of a government-owned gun.

It's all madness. Try not to form a view of the argument from Reddit.

That's a good summary. It is also very regional/local. If I lived in Chicago I may think we should ban all guns tomorrow. But I do not live in Chicago and, having been around guns my whole life, do not see how removing them from legal owners fixes anything.

The bitter irony is that Chicago already tries very hard to ban guns.

To which some may reply that trying to remove a symptom does not a cure make.

Until it does, and judging by the row of analgesics at the supermarket dulling the pain is often enough.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic - I'll assume you are. I don't imagine you actually believe perpetual use of pain killers is ever better than solving the root cause (and how tenuous a solution it is at that, ready to flare up worse than ever, with the patient now addicted to pain killers to boot).

> The gun debate never uses rational language on either side.

Case in point?

I think that you'll find sometimes those opinions vary greatly between subreddits.

Detailed demographics:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-...

(hint: it's very divided - somewhat by age, but not enough to back up my original point)

Thanks for this. The most interesting one to me is that there seems to be clear political will to restrict gun ownership in urban areas. I'd always wondered if the whole debate wouldn't be a lot less heated if it was done at a regional level, rather than even a state level.

The most depressing one to me is the divide between registered voters (slightly pro-gun) and non-registered voters (heavily anti-gun). If you want political change, maybe try voting!

I think there is also a prevailing sense of impotency and apathy. The capital is so far away from most people (geographically and culturally) that they don't feel like they can change things. American politics are very divided on party lines, and neither party addresses these issues.

I don't know what country the parent commentator is from, but US states are the size of most countries. At a local level there may be vigorous debate, but the only other comparable governments are the EU and maybe China. I imagine that the citizens of those governments also feel like they have very little voice?

(edit, the EU is not a country)