[NeonSamurai]

Perhaps that could be negotiable, but I will address your other points first.

Like I said in the end a lot of violence comes down to social economic terms, and the societies value system. This is why we can find examples of countries with low violent crime levels, and either loose gun control, or strong gun control. Possession in the end is a non factor. Guns are simply a facilitator of violent crime and not necessarily a deterrent.

I don't know either which in the end would be the best solution. I can only go on the past where people did openly carry firearms, the so called wild west. The fact that a lot of people were armed did not seem to slow the criminal element at all. Though the wild west had its own dynamic which is different from today's United States so it may not prove to be a valid comparison.

Now the constitution argument can be taken many ways, for example what exactly did the founding fathers mean by bear arms? It can be interpreted to mean the right to own arms, the right to carry them, or the right to join the military. All are equally valid interpretations. Also that right was enacted at a very different time then now. In those days the United States relied almost entirely on a militia army for national and civil defense. A militia which provided its own arms. Also the land was hostile and it was necessary for civilians to carry weapons for protection and survival. Times have changed since then, and the constitution as a living entity has also changed with them. As such it would be perfectly valid to amend that aspect of the constitution. Personally I think that right should be clarified better.

I generally agree, but I think there should be some legal restraints on free economy to ensure it is serving the public good, not an individual's (or group's) right to exploit everyone else for their own benefit. I would also point out that countries like Switzerland and Japan (to a lesser extent) have strong social support structures designed to help those in their society who have need (both economically and educationally). The best societies are ones which balance the rights and needs of the individual against the rights and needs of the whole. Over value one or the other and society will either tear itself apart, or be rife with social issues and upheaval.

Ya Japan has its issues, all countries do. Japan culturally is also very very different from North American or European culture, to the point where it can be almost alien to us. Various social pressures are one of the things responsible for the higher rates of suicide in that culture. Deadly assault I'm not exactly sure what the root cause is, I would suspect some of it originates from youthful rebellion, other from traditions of the past, and the rest to criminal syndications such as the Yakuza.

Well that criminals were not very skillful with firearms was in a sense true in the past, that dynamic is changing. One trend that has police circles very worried is that a lot of gang members have been joining the military and receiving military grade training. Some are even receiving special forces training and the like. These people are then when their service time is up going back to their gangs and teaching their members everything they know. There have as a result been more reports of SWAT engagements with gang members using military CQB methods to counter the police. Also in the past as well as the present there have been several criminals who were known for their skill with a firearm (in the wild west, during prohibition, etc). I would also say that criminals would start practicing more if everyone was armed to keep an edge.

Ok now for the big one, carry permission. The only way I could see that working would be with extremely strict laws and regulations. First of all alcohol and firearms would have to be utterly forbidden like alcohol and driving. If you want to drink you gotta leave the guns at home. Failure to do so should carry extremely harsh penalties including loss of carry permit, potential seizure of all owned firearms, and maybe even jail time. In other words zero tolerance. Second people would have to pass a psychological background check to insure they can safely carry a weapon. Followed by an extensive criminal background check for any previous violent crimes. Then they would require full training on firearm use and safety, and on threat identification. Lastly they would be fully responsible for their own actions in a legal sense, if they shoot someone they would have to go through a similar investigation as police, and they would have to fully justify the shooting or face criminal prosecution.

This is the only way I could see it working with out having massive amounts of accidental/erroneous shootings.

I thank you for the compliments by the way, it is nice to be able to rationally (and respectfully) debate such a subject with out introducing emotional elements. Sadly most people on the poles of the argument insist on using emotion to argue their point rather then trying to logically argue it. The only thing emotional arguments do is polarize the sides, not bring about consensus.